Sio William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Third Reading 
[Sitting date: 28 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8358. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in the third and final reading of the Government’s Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. During last night’s debate on this bill Labour put forward that we thought the new Minister of Local Government the Hon Chris Tremain has been landed a shocker of a bill. The bill denies basic democratic rights to the people of Canterbury. The bill will break a promise made by this Government that Cantabrians would hold free and democratic elections in 2013 after this Government replaced Environment Canterbury’s elected representatives with seven Government-appointed commissioners in 2010. The people of Canterbury did not ask this Government to interfere and remove their elected representatives in 2010. The people of Canterbury did not seek a promise from this Government that Environment Canterbury could hold its election this year. The Government made that promise freely and without coercion. The Government even legislated for that promise: after removing elected representatives in 2010 it said in the original Act the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act that elections would be held in 2013. Alas that is not to be. In passing this bill the Government breaks a solemn and legal obligation that it made voluntarily to the people of Canterbury. This bill extends for a further 3 years the loss of local government democracy in Canterbury thus extending the term of non-elected commissioners to 6½ years. And their service is to be paid for by the Canterbury ratepayers. 
The people of Canterbury have responded overwhelmingly opposing this bill. They have said in submissions made to the Government that this bill denies their right to local democracy. It is a breach of the rule of law they said. It is a bloody outrage and an affront on democracy they said. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: I am merely quoting Mr Deputy Speaker a submitter. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is not acceptable to just quote in a verbatim manner in the way the member has. I understand what he is trying to do. But just continue. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: I think the quote I have put forward reflects truly the feeling of people on the ground in Canterbury. Another quote is that it is “a disgracefully antidemocratic proposal which should not be allowed to proceed.” Another quote by the Human Rights Commissioner submitted that this bill breaches New Zealand’s “international obligations and its commitment in the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] to protect promote and fulfil the rights of people in New Zealand.” The New Zealand Law Society opposes this bill. It rightly submits that this Government does not have sufficient justification for suspending local democracy. The Beckenham Neighbourhood Association opposes this bill. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand opposes this bill. Through submissions through thousands of people who went out on the streets the people of Canterbury have overwhelmingly sought to send the strongest message possible to this Government to stop this madness. After a litany of broken promises on jobs on housing on health and on education the people of Canterbury have no confidence that this Government will allow them to hold elections in 2016. How can the people of Canterbury trust another promise when promise after promise has been broken? 
If the people of Canterbury have any doubt whatsoever that this Government has no intention whatsoever of keeping its promises have a look and consider the announcement made today by this Government of further changes to the Resource Management Act. The people of Canterbury can look at those reforms and find out for themselves that there is no way that this Government intends to keep its promise for 2016. It has broken the promise of 2013. It will break it again—it will break it again. In the recent announcement of the reforms we find that this pattern will now extend outside of Canterbury and will extend to all local government if the Government gets away with the changes in the recent work on the Resource Management Act. 
 We cannot blame the people of Canterbury for feeling the way that they feel now because it is an outrage particularly when you have had the then Minister of Local Government the Minister Nick Smith who clearly said in March 2010 “whatever the circumstances” that the next Environment Canterbury elections would be in 2013. He said: “whatever the circumstances”—whatever the circumstances—“the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” In this House I have learnt that Ministers’ words are law. We call them honourable members because it is our expectation that they keep their word. This bodes badly for all politicians the way that this Government has just made promises and broken them by law. That does not bode well for any of the members of this House. Not only did Nick Smith say those words but also Cabinet papers presented by David Carter the previous Minister of Local Government and presented by Amy Adams reinforced that elections would be held in 2013 so the passing of this bill reinforces what I am saying. There has been broken promise after broken promise. 
It has been broken because—and people might ask: “Well what is the purpose?”. Well I think the people of Canterbury have some very real concerns some very real fears because if they are not going to be given the opportunity to elect their own representatives yet are forced to continually pay for the efforts of their Government-appointed commissioners what sort of message does that send about our democracy? If I look around this room I see symbols of wreaths and I see names of various countries that many people fought for in wars and died for. They did this freely and gave their lives in many cases as a sacrifice because of their belief that democracy is important that democracy should be the foundation of our country. I have to say that this bill is a spit in those people’s faces. This shows that their sacrifice was not worth it. 
Just because this Government is in power it does not give it the right to ram things down people’s throats without taking the people with it. I have to say that consistently since this Government came into power I have no doubt that the people in Canterbury who are listening to this debate and observing how this Government has behaved would be sorely disappointed because I suspect that many of them thought that this Government would be a saviour. Particularly by electing some of the individuals representing them from that part of the country they might have thought that somehow their interests would be protected. Sadly they will now find out by the passing of this bill and through further bills that are to come that local democracy means nothing in terms of this Government. 
If it can do this to Canterbury what then is going to happen to other local authorities? I would say that come election 2014 I think it is incumbent upon every New Zealander if they do not like the way that this Government is treating them and is trampling on the rights of individuals the rights of our citizens that they need to vote this group out. Vote ’em out—that is the only way that you can bring about good change. As David Shearer said last year if Labour was in Government we would hold these elections for Canterbury right now. We would hold those elections right now because Labour upholds the principles of democracy. We know the value of democracy. We know the value of democracy but this group here does not.