Dyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
Dyson Ruth: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:661;Page:9976] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Good morning Mr Chairman. A lot of the squawking from the Opposition has been comparing this legislation with the legislation that was passed by the Labour-led Government in 2000 in relation to the abolition of the Rodney District Council and its replacement with a commissioner. There are a large number of differences between that situation and the current situation that we find ourselves in. The first difference is that Rodney District Council asked to be replaced by a commissioner. It agreed with the outcome of the review. It said that it was the best outcome and the following year elections were held. This situation is completely different. The Minister for the Environment has ridden roughshod over not only the councillors but also the people of Canterbury and the Creech review itself. Nowhere in that review did it give this Minister the mandate to do what he is doing. 
Jacqui Dean the member for somewhere down south who I recall wrote to one of my colleagues earlier in her term in Parliament inquiring about the dangers of water has now become an expert in water management. Jacqui Dean forgets what her party said at that time. I can quote from the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who is now the Speaker. When Labour introduced the bill to abolish Rodney District Council he stated: “I welcome the introduction of the bill into this House.” There was a bipartisan approach to that bill because the people of Rodney wanted it. Then he stated: “I must say though I am not sure whether we needed urgency to pass the bill through all stages”. National had some principles then. It was opposed to putting that bill through under urgency. 
Then Dr Lockwood Smith accused the Green Party of becoming voter fodder for the Labour Government. Kennedy Graham is rightly outraged and he was not in Parliament at the time. That situation may not have arisen had he been in the House. But that is exactly what people are saying about the ACT Party and the Maori Party now—that they are just acting as voting fodder for National. They are letting this happen to the people of Canterbury and there is no need for it. 
There is no need for our vote to be taken away from us. We have a right to vote for whoever we want in our region for our district health board our community boards our city council and our regional council. That right is being taken away by someone who does not even live in our region and who has the audacity to introduce this bill to this House under urgency and is ramming it through all its stages so that not a single member of the public can say: “This is good. This is bad. Why do you not think about that? There are some other options.” Not one single person has been able to do that because the Minister for the Environment knows it all. The combination of the Minister who knows everything and the Minister who tells everyone he knows everything—Rodney Hide—is just too scary to contemplate for too long. Last night their behaviour was extraordinary and I predict that it will get worse as the passage of this bill progresses. 
Passing a bill under urgency is not appropriate for a bill that takes away a fundamental right of so many New Zealanders. It is not needed; there are many alternatives. Russel Norman from the Green Party quite correctly pointed out that the fundamental purpose of this bill—which is not spelt out clearly in Part 1—is just as John Key outlined in his address at the opening of Parliament. He committed his Government to taking action to remove roadblocks to irrigation in Canterbury. Who cares about the environment? Who cares about the people’s voice? Who cares about the ability of private profit-making companies to compulsorily acquire land? 
Nicky Wagner 
: Only half the story Ruth. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is not the Minister for the Environment and it certainly not Nicky Wagner. There is no consideration of the fact that we should have a say when our environment our surroundings our land our aquifers our rivers and our estuary are all at stake. 
I ask what it is about Canterbury that the Minister thinks should disentitle us from having a fundamental say in the purpose of this bill. It is not just the fact that the entire elected representation of the regional council is being removed; it is also the fact that we will not have an opportunity to replace them at the next election. We are due to have an election in October of this year and we have to go past that election time and wait for an entire new term before the Minister may deem it fit to allow us—how generous of him—to vote for our regional council. 
But I have to be very frank. I know that the people of Canterbury have no faith in this Minister not to sneak through another dirty devious little bill that would take away our right for a longer period of time. I would not be at all surprised if the Minister is not lining himself up with the mayors of the region—who have had no discussion at all not one single discussion with their councils but have made an entirely unilateral contribution on our so-called behalf—to propose the equivalent of the Auckland super-city. This may well be the start of the disestablishment of our regional council structure altogether. 
I challenge the Minister to be up front about his behaviour for a change and to be honest and open with the people of Canterbury. We elected our regional council. Some of the people I would not have voted for; that is one of the parts of democracy we should cherish. There is a large number of members in this Parliament whom I would not vote for either. What is proposed in this bill is not the way that a democracy works. A democracy works when people have a vote and sometimes the people whom they want to be elected are elected and sometimes they are not. We have had taken away from us that fundamental right to elect people or to vote for people who do not in the end get elected. 
Not only is this a major breach of our fundamental right to vote for our regional representation but also it is unnecessary. Those writing the Creech report made that very clear. They said that widespread concerns had been expressed to them and they said quite categorically in their report that their investigation did not back up those concerns. It is about politics actually; this is a political game and the Minister has now thrown in his toys and started playing. It is a political game and it is being played at the expense of our water management and our entitlement to have our voice be heard throughout the process of consideration whether it is irrigation projects water storage projects or any other requirement to take water from our rivers. 
I urge the Minister even at this late stage when he has so much of his reputation at stake to reconsider. There are other options. He knows that members on this side of the Chamber would support the legislative requirements of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. He knows that; we have said so in the House. The problem with doing it this way is that it is divisive undemocratic and unnecessary. There is no need to cause such division in our community or to cause such frustration. Because of the Minister’s majority in Parliament and because he has had the privilege of taking up a ministerial portfolio he can use those powers to batter the people of Canterbury out of their right to vote. It is a huge breach of both the privilege and the responsibilities of a ministerial portfolio. 
If it was necessary as Sandra Lee thought it was in 2000 and as the National Party thought it was in 2000 then we would go for it. We would vote for it. The National Party had the courage to say that then. I have quoted the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith who said that he welcomed the introduction of the legislation appointing the commissioner to replace the Rodney District Council because the district council had asked for it. The Rodney District Council knew that that move would put their district council into the position where very soon after—just a year later—the people would once again be able to vote for their elected representatives. The Rodney District Council knew there was such dysfunction within the district council that it had no other option. That is not the case in this situation.