Sio William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I would have thought Mr Chairman that the debate on Part 2 which is the more substantive part of the bill is a debate that is probably overarching and probably you will hear quite robust discussions from this side of the Chamber. So when my colleague there who spoke just then the member Andrew Williams talked about dog tucker it reminded me of a saying that the farmers will appreciate and that is it does not matter how much perfume you pour on pig kaka it stinks. It still stinks. That is really how many people whom I have heard from refer to this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and the way this Government is treating the members of the public particularly the people of Canterbury. 
The substantive part Part 2 essentially removes the promise breaks the promise that the Government made that elections would be this year 2013. It is now saying elections will take place in 2016. This part of the bill also establishes this review in 2014. The question being asked by my colleagues Dr Megan Woods and Clayton Cosgrove as to whether there would be public consultation for that review is an important question that needs to be addressed. I would hope that the Minister of Local Government—any Minister—will confirm whether there is public consultation on this. I will tell you why. Whatever the case behind this bill the people of Canterbury have told the Local Government and Environment Committee that there is no justification for cancelling their elections. As ratepayers Canterbury residents deserve a say in who represents them and makes decisions on their behalf. The people of Canterbury feel strongly that this is a basic right. This has been backed up by numerous submissions. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford submitted that “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.” I have to say that residents have been outraged over their treatment. Time after time this Government either fails to act for them—to consult or listen to them—or overrides their rights for the Government’s goals. 
If there is any doubt about the passion of the people of Canterbury I refer you to 19 September 2012. The day after the first reading of this bill there was a protest at the Bridge of Remembrance in Christchurch against the axing or merging of 31 local schools and the decision to delay the Environment Canterbury elections till 2016 and the perceived loss of democracy in that city—that entire city. If you do not believe that I refer you to 27 September 2012. The Christchurch City Council voted overwhelmingly to express its opposition to the move and to seek a meeting with the Minister to ask why the elections were postponed. On 12 December a 1000-strong crowd rallied in Latimer Square calling for a return to democracy. Those are just examples of how the people of Canterbury are saying to this Government: “We want our democracy back.” The Government does not have the right to remove the basic rights that these people are entitled to. 
I am going to ask the question: will the Minister confirm whether there will be public consultation in terms of the review? I tell you that this is so important. If there is silence from that side of the Chamber then I am going to refer this Committee to the regulatory impact statement. It says: “We recognise that there has not been a Crown led public consultation process with Canterbury stakeholders and communities on the options in the RIS … In our view it would be appropriate for further specific consultation to be undertaken …”. Here are the authors of the regulatory impact statement identifying that there has been no public consultation prior to this bill being introduced. If there is silence and this Government will not confirm one way or the other that it is its intention to consult with the public over the review in 2014 then the message will remain with the people of Canterbury and the general public that it does not intend to do so despite the rhetoric from some on that side of the Chamber. 
I think it is important because despite an earlier comment from that side of the Chamber—I agree with Mr Andrew Williams—overwhelmingly the submissions made by the public on this bill have been a general no a general vote against this bill. Let me quote some of the names. I think this is important. Adam Brasell votes against this bill. He says: “The removal of voting rights and democratic procedures …” is wrong. “The taxation of Canterbury residents without representation.” is something that they are up in arms about. Alan MacRae opposes the bill. Angela McPherson opposes the bill. She believes that the Government’s plan for Canterbury is a “takeover of governance and resources.” Annette and Michael Hamblett oppose the elections being delayed until 2016 concerned that the bill will continue to undermine water conservation orders. Chrys Horn opposes the bill. Cliff Mason opposes the bill. Dirk De Lu opposes the bill. Dr Bronwyn Hayward opposes the bill. Edward Snowdon opposes the bill. Elsie Edgerton-Till opposes the bill. George Moon opposes the bill. Helen Elizabeth Lowe opposes the bill. James Adams opposes the bill. 
What I am pointing out is that these are real people in Canterbury who are opposed to what this Government is proposing. I have heard tonight that the Government intends to do consultation on this review but we on this side of the Chamber are asking whether the Minister will confirm one way or another that the people of Canterbury will be consulted in the review that this bill introduces. If it will consult with them then it needs to tell us tonight whether that is going to be the case. I tell you why: if the Government does not say one way or the other tonight then the people of Canterbury are left with what is in the regulatory impact statement where it says that the public were not consulted. They should have been consulted particularly when this Government breaks a promise. This year is 2013. At the end of this year New Zealand will conduct the election of our local body representatives except for Canterbury. Canterbury people expected to elect their own representatives. It is not right and I point out that in this particular section that we are talking about tonight not only is the Government removing elected representatives but it then goes ahead and pays the unelected representatives from the rates of the people of Canterbury who have not had a say about who their representatives are. 
So it is really very very important that the Government be quite clear: is it going to consult with the people of Canterbury over this bill and the proposed review or not? It is a simple question. I am hopeful that the new Minister in the chair the Minister of Local Government will take up the reins. As I have said before I have listed off names of individuals who have taken the time to come before the select committee and oppose this particular bill. I think the least that this Government can do is to invite those people to come forward and talk about why it is that they oppose the change the postponement of the election that this Government is proposing. It is a simple fact. If the Government is going to use taxpayer money to pay for certain individuals to run a city it is the right of the people paying taxes to be able to elect those representatives. That is not the Government’s right. I pose the question again: is this the kind of future that we are looking towards under this Government—that any time you dislike the people’s representative you remove them? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Chuck them out. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Absolutely—you chuck them out. Is that the kind— 
Hon Member 
: Is this Fiji? 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Absolutely. 
Hon Member 
: Bainimarama. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Is this the Bainimarama culture that has been brought in? Is this Government just too close to Frank Bainimarama that that is the sort of thing that we can foresee in the future? If it is I tell you: the people of Canterbury will vote this Government out.