Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:8203. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 19 February. 
Part 1 Amendments to preliminary provision ( 
continued 
)  
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I thought it might be important for people to recognise that the bill before the Committee amends the original Act the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act which this Government passed only in 2010. People may remember that through the original Act of 2010 essentially this Government empowered itself to remove the elected members of Environment Canterbury who were elected by the community at the time. This Government under that Act replaced those elected members by having seven Government-appointed commissioners. It also ought to be recognised that the reason that was argued by this Government in 2010 that gave rise to the original bill was that there were systemic and performance issues and concerns raised by Ngai Tahu in a report that was presented to this Government in February 2010 by the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech. People might recall that the Rt Hon Wyatt Creech is a former member of the National Government under Jenny Shipley. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s right. Jenny Shipley from Mainzeal. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: That is right. So that was the background to the bill that we now have—the original Act. 
The bill before the Committee is to amend the original Act by—and there are a couple of issues that I suspect that people listening to the debate particularly people in the area of Canterbury will have some very very serious concerns about. This bill now delays the election for Environment Canterbury until 2016 with a review occurring next year despite the fact that the Government Minister then responsible for driving this bill the Hon Nick Smith had promised that the election would be held this year. I want to quote the Hon Dr Smith. His words: “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” That was what was on the original bill. That 2013— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Say that again. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: I will read it again for those members not listening to the quote. This is the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I want to quote him because these words are important because in this House we live and die by the words that we use. So as the Hon Dr Smith said: “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” 
Hon Member 
: When did he say that? 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Well that is right. The reference is to this year. This is when we are supposed to according to the original Act call elections for the people of Canterbury. But the bill that is before the Committee again introduced by only—[ 
Interruption 
] The next election of regional councillors to Environment Canterbury’s governing body is to occur at the 2016 local authority elections. I put to you— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Never-never land. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Absolutely. Look irrespective of concerns raised irrespective of the issues that the mayors of the region have is this the way that we do things in New Zealand? Is this the kind of New Zealand that we have—that if we are not happy with officials elected by the local community democratically if we are not happy with their performance we simply remove them? Is this how we are going to do things under this Government by— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Dictatorship. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: —dictating to the people? They were elected. They were elected by the community to do a job. Surely rightly or wrongly we should allow them to perform that job. But that is not so bad. The fact that a Minister of this Government promised that this year the people would be able to re-elect their representatives and now the Government is saying: “No. That’s not going to happen. People of Canterbury look you’re just going to have to wait until 2016”— 
Darien Fenton 
: Tough luck. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Tough luck—absolutely. 
So we looked at the bill. I have to say with the greatest respect to the new Minister of Local Government the Hon Chris Tremain I think he has been handed an absolute shocker of a bill. The whole essence of this bill denies democratic rights that his Government promised the people of Canterbury they would receive this year in this election. So while the rest of New Zealand will be happily going about campaigning to elect good men and women to represent them in various local governments throughout the country the Government has decided: “No. People of Canterbury you are not good enough to elect your own officials.” That is the kind of message this bill says. 
I want to say that this is another broken promise by the John Key Government. Many will recall that in March 2010 Nick Smith was very clear when he said that “whatever the circumstances” the next Environment Canterbury election would be in 2013. That is just not going to happen because the bill says that 2016 is when the election is. But there is to be a review next year. Now people are asking: “Well what is that review about? If you are saying 2016 make it happen in 2016.” But I do not believe that the people of Canterbury will have any confidence whatsoever that this Government will keep its word. If it failed in keeping its word for 2013 and now it is saying “Yes 2016 but we’ll run a review first in 2014”— 
Hon Member 
: Maybe 2019. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: That is right. 
I want to quote some submissions on this bill that were provided by some very significant individuals. I think it is important that the new Minister takes note. The Beckenham Neighbourhood Association opposes this bill. The community law centre of Canterbury opposes this bill and it is recommending that the provisions relating to the cancellation of the 2013 election be removed. The Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand oppose this bill. They believe that this bill will erode not only local communities’ right to elect their own but also their right to be able to take up issues with the Environment Court because the bill is saying that they can take redress only on matters of point of law. Well I think that if the new Minister would talk to the community law centre in Canterbury it would be well worth his time. 
The officials’ advice as I read says that the bill does not contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but a submission from the Human Rights Commission shows concern about the Act. It says that the way in which it was originally enacted and the intention to extend it contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I do not know how the new Minister views the officials’ advice the actions of former colleagues and how the people of Canterbury will receive this bill but I want to say that the essence of what the community is saying is that it opposes the thrust and advance by this Government to continue postponing its democratic right to elect its local government representatives. I believe that the new Minister who hails from the Hastings area and has a good relationship with local government would have heard from local government there that there is no way they would accept him saying in respect of their issues of performance that the Government was going to appoint commissioners and replace elected officials. I would ask on what basis the Minister has decided to ram-shot this bill—[ 
Interruption 
] Well yes—ram it. 
Hon Member 
: What do you mean ram it? 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO 
: Well because the Minister is not giving the people of Canterbury their right to choose. The Minister is not giving the people of Canterbury their freedom to be able to elect their own representatives. The Minister is not giving them a choice whatsoever. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I have been listening to the debate on the Committee stage of the this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill over the last few days—and for a few minutes tonight—and I have been moved to take a call. The reason I have been moved to take a call is that I come from Auckland and I obviously have some—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry; I apologise for that. But I know that in Auckland people would be rioting in the streets right now if this kind of provision was being put forward. I know we had Rodney Hide’s little adventure with the amalgamation of Auckland and there was quite a lot of rioting at local level. But at the same time what I think has happened here from what I can see from a distance is that the people of Canterbury are being taken advantage of. The earthquake has become an excuse for ditching democracy. 
I have to say that I am deeply disappointed in the new Minister the Hon Chris Tremain. Chris Tremain and I came into Parliament together and I had high hopes for the integrity of that Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
DARIEN FENTON 
: However to be fair Mr Chair I do think he has been handed something that no incoming Minister of Local Government would want to have to deal with. He has certainly been handed the short straw particularly given the promises of previous Ministers such as the Hon Nick Smith who promised in 2010 that whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury would take place no later than the elections scheduled for late 2013. I would like to hear from the Minister who is now in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries what the explanation is for the delay. Has he been back and spoken to the former Minister and said: “You made that promise.”? How does he justify taking away the right of the people of Canterbury to choose the people who lead them particularly in the circumstances of Christchurch? We have seen dreadful earthquakes in Christchurch and we have seen the people of Canterbury trying to bring themselves together and having to put up with the imposition and the arrogance we are seeing from Wellington about the Christchurch rebuild. People who say anything opposing the Government’s will about the Christchurch rebuild actually get criticised. They are told that they are carping and being a bit of a nuisance—a bit of a nuisance. 
I think that is what this bill is about actually. The people of Canterbury are seen as a nuisance. They are seen as a nuisance and that is what this bill is about. It is about a bunch of people in Canterbury who are a nuisance to the Government and who have been completely disregarded. So those people who are a nuisance do not deserve the right to vote in the people who will represent them! 
This year as my colleague Su’a William Sio pointed out we will be having local body elections up and down the country. We will be having them in Auckland. We are going to have a fantastic election in Auckland. We are looking forward to that. People will be coming together and talking about what it is that they want for their city. They will be talking about what it is they want for their region. They will be talking about the issues that are important to them and they will be making democratic decisions and deciding whom they are going to vote for but what this bill does is deny those rights to the people of Canterbury. It is another broken promise—another broken promise—that we have seen from John Key’s Government. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: An outright lie. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: In fact it is an outright lie as my colleague says. Of course as we know John Key should have listened when the Hon Nick Smith made that promise. However how many promises have we heard? How many promises have we heard from this Government? How many promises have been broken? 
I was also moved to speak on this bill because I heard that there were 95 submissions on this bill and of those 90 were opposed. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I am always suspicious when we have loaded titles of legislation. It is a bit like Operation Enduring Freedom which we had under President George Bush. We have got the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and when you hear a Government use a self-congratulatory title like that you do wonder what is going on. 
Well the real effect of the Government’s actions in respect of this legislation has to be put alongside other legislation. This Government has neutered the freshwater policy statement that came out of Judge Sheppard and went through the Land and Water Forum. The Land and Water Forum came up with a consensual solution that was pretty close to where Judge Sheppard and his panel had got to. The Government then responded to behind-the-door pressure and undermined that. We have had this legislation undermining water conservation orders in the Canterbury area. Everywhere else in New Zealand except in Canterbury water conservation orders bind the regional council. They can be changed only through a process that ends up in the Environment Court after the Minister has had a say as to whether the amendment application should be heard but it cannot be done by a regional council just saying: “Oh look we’ve changed our mind. We actually think that way back when when New Zealand tried to protect a river like the Rakaia River”—they want to change it. But you know that is the effect of this legislation. It overrides water conservation orders which is another thing that threatens water quality and water quantity in Christchurch. 
And that is why I am not surprised to see some of the media criticisms of this legislation particularly in respect of Part 1 saying that one of the background factors to this is not actually the better outcome for the planning of water in Canterbury; it is actually irrigation outcomes that the Government wants to achieve perhaps through changing provisions in water conservation orders and also through its ill-considered subsidies that are coming from the taxpayer dollar to irrigation schemes which are effectively increasing the capital value of farms at the cost of taxpayers. So those two factors alone make it a nonsense to call this the improved water management bill. 
It is also I think an indictment on the poor processes of this Government that it could come to this Parliament 3 years ago and take the Draconian step that it did then and promise that 3 years later which sounded like a long time at the time it would have elections. Here we go in 2013 and it is saying that we are not now going to have elections. It promised them in 2010; now it is extending them until 2016. 
What about the old principle that there should be no taxation without representation? Because that is what rates are effectively. They are a form of taxation and ratepayers are forced to pay under threat of their properties being sold if they do not pay their rates. You should have representation. You should have local representation. There is no good reason that we have heard from the Government to justify the extension of these commissioners in Canterbury who have taken over the proper role of the regional council for an additional 3 years—no good reason whatsoever. 
I wonder also whether it is related to the Government’s intentions to ram through if it can the abolition of regional councils just about everywhere moving towards unitary authorities which might be a good idea for a big city like Auckland but which I am not convinced is the answer for the rest of New Zealand yet the Government seems to be pushing forward on that trajectory. So I would like the Minister in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries to take a call and answer the criticisms that I have made and that have been made by submitters on the bill such as the Fish and Game Council amongst others who criticised this process; the Human Rights Commission; and local voters in the Canterbury region who are sad or annoyed that they have lost their rights. 
The Human Rights Commission submission said: “The Commission considers that no good reason has been provided for extending the present legislation. The lack of public consultation about content - or the continuing need for legislation - is an abuse of the democratic process …”. They are very strong words from the human rights commissioner—very strong words indeed. I will say that again: it is an abuse of the democratic process. Then the submission goes on and says: “and does not reflect the real needs of Cantabrians (and could even do real harm).” 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other provisions 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 As we embark on the debate on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill many of the points that were made in the debate on Part 1 about this being a unique piece of legislation in terms of the loss of democratic process apply equally to this part. 
The question that I would like to ask the Minister is that I note in new section 17A(1) inserted by clause 5 that “The responsible Ministers must begin a review of ECan on 1 March 2014. (2) The review must cover—(a) the governance structure of ECan; and (b) the membership of ECan; and (c) ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3.” I would like to just ask the Minister in the chair the Minister for Primary Industries—because I do not think we have had an answer to this question throughout this entire debate—about the notion put up that the Government somehow has some sort of support or mandate for this legislation. I think Nicky Wagner as she was polling her electorate about how unpopular she has become in terms of the Phillipstown School issues and this particular legislation tried to make a claim that there was overwhelming support in Canterbury for not only Part 1 but Part 2. We know that in terms of the evidence given to the Local Government and Environment Committee there were five submissions in favour and 90 submissions opposed. She forgot about that little detail in her various dissertations. 
But I would like to ask the Minister whether he feels that there is widespread support in the community apart from the National Party in gumboots—Federated Farmers—apart from Ngai Tahu and apart from Local Government New Zealand. Apart from Ngai Tahu those other two organisations are not grassroots widespread representation of Canterbury. Where is the support and the mandate for this legislation? There is none. Not one speaker from the National Government—not Ms Wagner not “Curly” nor any of the others—has managed to get up— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes that is entirely—the member will withdraw that comment. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: How do you know it was directed at him? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member will withdraw the comment. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I withdraw. Not Aaron Gilmore—sorry that is just clarification for those who are listening tonight. We sucked him out of the pack like the old ace in the pack of cards. He woke up. Not Aaron Gilmore who promised that there would be Environment Canterbury elections on time— 
Nicky Wagner 
: He got here. At least he’s got here. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh they are all awake now including the clucker over there from Christchurch Central. All the low-altitude flyers on that side promised there would be elections on schedule and then they broke that promise. I would like one of them to get up. I would like the low-altitude flyer over there who has just come back into Parliament Mr Gilmore—or Ms Wagner or others—to get up and make one attempt to explain to the people why he feels that National has a mandate to put through this legislation. Would the member like to answer the question now? Oh no silence. He was quick to take a point of order about such things as haircuts but apart from that no— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: The member likes— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: If he has got something to say would the member like to answer the question? Could the member get up now—and I would be happy to yield to him—and answer where he believes his Government has a mandate to put this legislation through? Does he have a mandate or not? Is there an explanation? 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Say something sensible. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh “Say something sensible.” So that member does not believe that he requires a mandate or public support to put through a measure that effectively cauterises the democratic rights of people in the province in which he has resided now and again over the last 2 or 3 years. I will ask him again: where is the mandate for that? 
Aaron Gilmore 
: It’s called election day. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh no “It’s called an election.” That member does not get the legislation. Look I have to say it is only three pages long so try reading it. It cancels an election—it cancels an election. Does that low-altitude flyer now residing back in Canterbury not actually get it? He does not read the bill. He does not have a mandate. He says that that is a silly concept to put forward. He says: “Say something sensible. Stop calling for a mandate.” And now for some reason he believes that there was an election when he cancelled it. Well I have to say that the man who once claimed that he had cheated me in the MBA programme at Canterbury University when he was not even there—I mean his CV is growing by the day—this boy is really good. Maybe he should do a political science class and work out what an election is. What a fool! 
I say to that member and to all those members opposite that as the Ministers under Part 2 actually go on to review Environment Canterbury I wonder whether they will take public submissions for that review. I wonder whether they will actually want to hear from the public who by that stage if this legislation is passed will have lost their democratic rights for two election periods of time. I wonder whether they will allow people to come and say to the National Government: “Why is it you broke your cast-iron promise? Why is it Nick Smith said the following: ‘I propose that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners”—[ 
Bell rung 
] Thank you Mr Chair. I wonder whether they will allow public submissions on this ministerial review so that people can ask why it was that the then Minister of Local Government or Cabinet Minister—and he still is now—Nick Smith said: “I propose that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners have satisfactorily addressed the immediate issues facing ECan but no later than the local body elections scheduled for late 2013.” We have not had the Minister— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s this year. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is this year—that is right. In case Aaron Gilmore missed it—the lunar calendar prevails—that is this year 2013. He has probably got a degree in astroscience as well tacked on to— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He wrote the first one. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He probably did—he probably did. He probably did indeed. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The Gilmore calendar. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes absolutely. So I wonder whether the Ministers will take submissions. Not one Minister in the chair not the Minister of Local Government or his stand-in or any member—including the Canterbury members and I do not count Mr Gilmore as one; he is the fly-in fly-out member now and again—not one of those members has stood up and provided justification for this legislation. They have not even got up and defended Nick Smith for breaking his promise—and all the other Cabinet Ministers—because it is utterly indefensible. 
I would like to know from the Minister whether in this great review that Ministers will undertake on 1 March 2014 covering governance membership and powers and functions they will be taking public submissions. Hang on the empty tin is rattling. Will they be taking public submissions? Oh silence. They do not know—do not know. Mr Gilmore is hiding under the desk. I am sure he has got the answer. Will they be taking public submissions? I invite a Minister to get up and actually answer that question. I think after being done over as the people of Canterbury have and after being lied to—lied to—as the people of Canterbury have they deserve to know whether they will actually have a say and a part in that review. It will have been so long that they may forget what the vote is given that it has been taken away from them. 
It will be interesting in the Christchurch local body elections to see whether the venom is released from people who disagree with this measure because there is widespread opposition to this. Not one member of Parliament—I will give Nicky Wagner some credit. She did get up and say that as I said Federated Farmers Local Government New Zealand and Ngai Tahu had said it was a great thing. There were two other submissions in support of it but she could not remember those. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The irrigators. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The irrigators. But she forgot that 90 of the 95 submissions were against it. But she in her little world orbiting in the same stratosphere as Mr Gilmore does from time to time believes that the Government has widespread support. But I ask Mr Gilmore again: can he point to that support? Can he point to a mandate given that he is the fresh-faced little boy who won the lollipop raffle and got back into Parliament? You know he won the lollipop raffle got an extra packet of jellybeans and bounced back in here on the taxpayers’ purse. He should do his job tonight. He should get on his feet and he should actually answer some questions as a Government member. He should not just sit there vegetating and doing nothing. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Talk to the bill Clayton. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Talk to the bill! Well the bill is actually about you Mr Gilmore and your ilk taking away the rights of the people of Canterbury. That is actually what it is about. I will say again that it is only three pages the print is probably big enough and there are not too many big words in it—apart from taking away elections—and he might want to read it. So I say earn your $150000 Mr Gilmore. Stand up tonight as the newly minted member from somewhere actually answer some questions and answer the questions as to where the mandate is where the public support for this bill is and why you—and every member of your Government through you—broke your promise. Oh hang on. The genius is silent on that. He does not have an answer or I suspect—more accurately—he knows the truth. It is in writing it is on the record of the House and there is absolutely no defence and no justification for his actions or those of anybody else. 
It will be interesting to see what happens at the next general election when he pokes his head out of whatever burrow geographically he puts himself in—when he pokes his head out of a particular burrow and puts his head up for election—and is asked on the stump why he did this. The next general election of course will be right in the middle of the next period when Cantabrians are experiencing a lack of democracy at the regional government level. It will be interesting. I wonder whether Nicky Wagner in her recent poll of Christchurch Central asked about the Environment Canterbury issue. If she did why does she not release the poll results? 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 This Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill deals with a review of the powers and functions of Environment Canterbury under Part 3 of the principal Act the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. That part of the principal Act deals with water conservation orders. In the Green Party’s view there would be no need for the review of water conservation orders in 2014 if the Government was committed to doing something now. It should be committed to doing something now because in Canterbury we have a legal situation with water conservation orders where the provisions that apply under the Resource Management Act in Canterbury are quite different from anywhere else in New Zealand. The purpose of water conservation orders outside of Canterbury is “to recognise and sustain outstanding amenity or intrinsic values and to preserve as far as possible in its natural state any water body that is considered outstanding” and to protect habitat fisheries recreational scientific ecological and other characteristics of a river or lake that is considered to be outstanding. Yet in Canterbury that does not apply. Those provisions have been substantially weakened by the principal Act and when officials’ advice was that there was no justification for continuing this different regime in Canterbury why does the bill continue it? Why does the bill not repeal that? When we were debating Part 1 I challenged the Minister of Local Government to answer the question as to why Ministers have decided to go against the advice of officials and I repeat that challenge. It is not legally good practice to have two different regimes applying in different parts of the country. 
New Zealanders love our wild and scenic rivers. They love rivers like the Rakaia and the Ahuriri which are protected by water conservation orders. They are an important part of our way of life and our identity and they are places for people to enjoy recreationally. When we are losing wild and scenic rivers internationally and in New Zealand because they have been channelised with stopbanks for flood protection purposes and they are being taken for irrigation to turn fields green it is really important that we protect the rivers that remain. This bill certainly repeals the references to the Hurunui River water conservation order and that is because Fish and Game withdrew its application for a water conservation order to protect and preserve that river because it recognised that it would not be of much value given the weakened provisions that apply. There have been no other applications for water conservation orders since the principal Act was passed.  
The bill should reinstate Part 9 of the Resource Management Act which applies elsewhere in New Zealand. Because it does not it means that we are not getting the protection that some of our Canterbury rivers deserve. In 2010 I rafted the Clarence River. That is a multi-day rafting trip on one of the most scenic and enjoyable grade 2 and 3 rafting rivers in New Zealand. The river starts at Lake Tennyson. People start rafting near the Acheron homestead and the river is nature’s own highway. It goes through the tawny tussock lands of Molesworth Station through the Clarence Reserve and down that fault line between the inward and seaward Kaikouras. The Clarence River deserves to be protected by a water conservation order because it is one of our outstanding rivers. Yet because the south bank is in Canterbury and the weakened provisions in the principal Act would apply why would the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society or Fish and Game apply to protect that river?  
We have seen no progress on protecting our outstanding wild and scenic rivers under this Government. We had two major reports on water conservation orders by the New Zealand Conservation Authority and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment last year recommending greater attention and expansion of the ways in which water conservation orders work and their application to the land in the catchment. Yet what has this Government done? Absolutely nothing. That is because this Government does not care about our rivers except as a source of irrigation and to generate hydro power. It has had the opportunity to repeal those sections in the principal Act and as Fish and Game said that would be a demonstrable example of good faith in restoring the law in Canterbury as it prevails elsewhere in the country yet the Minister has failed to take that opportunity the Government has failed and there has been no explanation from Ministers on the Government benches as to why it has rejected that advice when it would be a sign— 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge the contribution we have just heard from my fellow Canterbury MP Eugenie Sage. Hearing her talk with such expertise and knowledge about water and conservation in Canterbury one wonders why she was sacked as a regional councillor by the National Government and why it is we are here debating this motion tonight. I want to talk to clause 5 of Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and pick on a clause that my colleague Clayton Cosgrove spoke to around the timetable for the review that will be carried out in March 2014. To reiterate some of the questions that my colleague asked on that we would like the Minister in the chair Nathan Guy to take a call and let us know whether the public will have input into this review in 2014. Will this be another chance for Cantabrians to try to have their voices heard? They can beat their heads against a wall because they overwhelmingly submitted against the piece of legislation we are debating here tonight. I think we have heard that over and over again. Fundamentally this is a Government that does not trust Cantabrians to make decisions about Canterbury. This is a Government that does not have faith in the people of Canterbury to make the best decisions for their province. We want to know whether they will have a chance to have another say on this in 2014. 
One wonders what form this review will take in 2014. When you go through the number of submissions that were heard and what this Government— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: 95. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: There were 95 submissions 90 of which were opposed. Then you look at the regulatory impact statement to this piece of legislation and you see all the advice. Not only was the commissioner saying “For goodness’ sake return to some form of democracy in Canterbury.” but you have advice from numerous organisations. Treasury gave advice that actually a transitional arrangement was preferable. We have the Canterbury Mayoral Forum—which this Government actually likes to hide behind and say that it was asked by the Canterbury Mayoral Forum to do it—quoted in the regulatory impact statement as saying that it would like to see a return to at least a transitional arrangement. This is a Government that is ignoring the views of Cantabrians. 
As we have heard most expertly from my Canterbury colleague Eugenie Sage there are a couple of things that lie beneath this. One is the need for National to deliver on irrigation. It is not that the Government does not trust the people of Canterbury; it is that it did not like the elected council because it would not let the Government do what it wanted to and to deliver on its election promises around irrigation. So hey presto here is a solution: cancel the elections and appoint some people to get through what you want your political agenda. It is truly shocking that we are standing here debating a piece of legislation that is about the cancellation of elections in pursuit of a political agenda by a political party. 
Also lurking beneath this legislation is the Government’s desire to explore the notion of a unitary authority for Canterbury. We have the Government making noises in this direction. We have seen this happen in Auckland. It is not going to work in Canterbury. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How do you know? 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: Nicky Wagner the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee asks me how I know. Sorry Ms Wagner I will tell you why it will not work. It will not work because it has been tried before. It was called the Canterbury Provincial Government and the very reason that the provincial government had to be abolished in 1876 the very same tensions that existed mean that a unitary authority that brings together the city of Christchurch and the city of Timaru and tries to put these competing interests together—you can sit there and laugh Ms Wagner but I regret to inform you that those very same tensions are there. If you hold a review and you let public submissions be heard in 2014 you may just find that out. The very competing interest about the economic agendas of the two parts of the province will come to the fore again. 
This has been tried before and we can see—[ 
Interruption 
] I would like Ms Wagner rather than sitting in her chair and sniggering to take a call and tell us whether the people of Christchurch will have a chance to have their voices heard in March 2014 why it is that she thinks a unitary authority—which she was very quick to defend with her interjections I would like to note—will work and whether she would like to tell us that this really is the Government’s agenda. We know that water and irrigation are one of its agendas and we are hearing very much here that actually the unitary authority—what we were saying is lurking beneath—seems to be coming to the surface a little bit more in the Chamber tonight. So Ms Wagner we welcome your taking a call and explaining to us on this— 
Nicky Wagner 
: Mr Chair. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: Are you seeking a call to explain this Ms Wagner? 
Nicky Wagner 
: Yes. Mr Chair. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS 
: No you are welcome to take a call after me and we look forward to answers on this. We have put forward a range of reasons why we oppose this bill. You cannot get more fundamental than standing in a House of Representatives and saying that we oppose this bill because it is taking away the right of Cantabrians to elect their members. National knows that this bill is not popular and that is why the chair of the select committee Ms Wagner is polling her own electorate at the moment. She knows that this in combination with her failure to protect Phillipstown School has done her some damage because the people of Canterbury do not support this legislation. The people of Canterbury do not want their vote cancelled yet again. They have had it done once and they certainly do not want it done again. 
There is a moral obligation on this Government as elected representatives themselves to restore democracy to Canterbury. Labour will return it to an elected regional council after we are elected in 2014 because that is the right and proper way. To hide behind notions of the earthquake—well actually earthquakes do not stop you voting. I would like you to point to other parts of the world when you take your call—which we are awaiting with great anticipation—where it was necessary to cancel elections after a disaster because I did notice that in the select committee report on the legislation the earthquakes are used as a justification for the extension yet again of the denial of Cantabrians’ right to vote. So we welcome hearing the select committee chair’s view on that. 
Labour opposes this legislation quite simply because it is wrong to deny people their democratic rights but we do welcome and await with anticipation a call from Ms Wagner where she will answer the questions we have put forward in the Committee tonight. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak to this bill today the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and particularly to talk about Part 2 because Part 2 focuses on the ministerial review that must be heard before 1 March 2014. 
In this bill it is quite clear what that ministerial review will cover. First of all it covers the governance structure of Environment Canterbury. This means we can have a discussion about that governance structure and it has been interesting to hear the discussion here tonight. It is an open discussion that can be had by the people of Canterbury. The bill also discusses the membership of Environment Canterbury and Environment Canterbury’s powers and functions. 
It was particularly interesting listening to Mr Clayton Cosgrove about the submissions on this bill. There were only three submissions on this part of the bill and those three submissions all supported the idea of a review so we had three submissions in support of this part of the bill. The inclusion of clause 5 reflects the intention to transition the regional governance of Canterbury back to democracy and to identify the best long-term governance solutions for the Canterbury region. The bill did not seek to specify the process so that process will have to be worked through or to limit its scope but you can be assured that the review will be comprehensive. 
So I think what we have been discussing tonight in Part 2 is the importance of this review the fact that it will be held by 1 March 2014 and the fact that it will be comprehensive. I commend this bill to the Committee. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 Was it not very interesting hearing that from Nicky Wagner the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee who obviously does not understand the process of submissions in that she misled in a sense the people of New Zealand listening tonight by saying that only three people submitted on Part 2? Well the average New Zealander does not submit to something on the basis of parts of a bill Ms Wagner. The average New Zealander—if you know anything about democracy—simply gets told about a bill and they simply submit on a bill. They do not submit on parts of a bill. Only those who are very very knowledgable about legislation will submit on a part of a bill. So that was extremely misleading. 
But it is understandable because this Government has commented on the five submitters who supported the overall bill and has ignored the 90 others out of the 95 submitters who opposed the bill. So typically it makes note of Federated Farmers it makes note of Business New Zealand and it makes note of its cronies and mates who support it but it ignores the other 90 because that is not convenient. It was very interesting sitting around that committee table—in Christchurch as well—hearing how the National Party members gave lip-service to many of the submitters. They patronised them. In the case of the Hon Nick Smith a young 14-year-old submitted to the bill—a 14-year-old—and the Hon Nick Smith said to him: “Why should we be listening to you when you can’t even vote? You’re not even eligible to vote.” It was shocking. 
Nicky Wagner 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to point out that the Hon Nick Smith— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No no. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! No that is a debatable point. It is not for me to judge the validity of comments made. They are debatable points. Members wanting to disagree can take another call. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: So in this regard let us just remind the National Party that after the next general election when there is a new Government there will be local body elections in Canterbury. The Labour Party has said that New Zealand First has said that and the Green Party has said that. There will be elections in Canterbury for all of Canterbury for all elements of local government in Canterbury after the next general election. We will ensure that that happens. Any Cantabrians listening to this tonight need to remember that with a change of Government there will be elections in Canterbury. 
Can I also remind the people sitting on the other benches over there—the people sitting there smirking who smirked through the submissions at the select committee—that they sit on a very very slim majority in some cases. We are talking about democracy here. We are talking about election to local government but I will remind the member Nicky Wagner for instance who is sitting on 12064 votes up against Brendon Burns on 12017 votes that she is sitting on a very slim majority and that majority will not be there in 18 months’ time if she continues with it. I will remind “Curly-tops” over to the right— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Oh sorry— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No do not say “sorry”. We have already had a caution on this. If any member is going to breach my rulings their speech will be terminated. The member will withdraw his comment immediately. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: I am sorry. I withdraw Mr Chairman. I do not know the gentleman himself but I was just referring to a former comment about that individual. But in terms of Mr Aaron Gilmore I will remind him that he got 10225 votes and lost to Lianne Dalziel who got 15559. At the same time during the same election—and we were going for only the party vote—New Zealand First got 1801. So in terms of Christchurch East—which the Prime Minister descended on in a helicopter and visited only by helicopter; he thought that was sufficient to go and visit the Christchurch suburbs—you are dog tucker in terms of Christchurch East. Your party is dog tucker. You are gone— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! You must not bring the Chair into the debate. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Thank you Mr Chair. You are certainly not dog tucker—nothing like the sort. I would never ever think of you as dog tucker—do not ever think that. 
Thirdly the Port Hills. We have now the Speaker of the House David Carter who got 12640 votes and lost to the Hon Ruth Dyson with 15737 votes. Lost again—another electorate lost again—and in that electorate New Zealand First got 1609 party votes. I am reminding the National Party you will be gone— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! The speech is terminated. I have cautioned the member. 
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. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak to Part 2 of this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and I would like to focus on clause 5 which provides for the proposed review of the governance structure membership and powers and functions of Environment Canterbury. Like others before me I have the same questions around public participation and about whether the public will be genuinely involved in this process of the review or will they continue to be as they have already been sidelined marginalised and disempowered. I also have questions around the transparency of the process. Will the process be transparent? Will we understand and get to see the reasoning and rationale for the decisions that they have come up with the factors that have been involved and weighed upon in making any decisions? I also would like to know how consistent in particular the powers will be for the new Environment Canterbury when we get the council back compared with other regional governance powers. This is particularly important in relation not only to water conservation orders but also to powers relating to the management of our environment. 
I would like to talk a little bit about water conservation orders. Along with other protection mechanisms such as national parks and ecological areas water conservation orders represent a kind of bedrock of the foundation of sustainability in setting aside areas that are so high in conservation and ecological value that they can be protected for all time. I know people who put in an enormous amount of time and energy to ensure that the best possible water conservation orders or national parks are established and I know the lengths that some people who are passionate about the rivers and protecting the rivers will go to. I know a couple who actually sold their only boat. They live in a very modest cottage. They had a boat to go boating on the Rakaia River but they cared about the Rakaia River so much that they sold their boat in order to help fund the putting together of a water conservation order to protect that river. These people are absolutely heartbroken that as you know the Rakaia River water conservation order is being weakened and that has come about through the different powers that have been given to Environment Canterbury under the original legislation and that continue to be extended. 
The problem with constantly betraying the kind of social contract that we have with people and with conservationists who are wanting to protect the environment is that it is just not sustainable for people who care about the environment to constantly fight these battles. You think you have gained protection for a river and then discover 10 years down the track that what you have worked so hard for to protect that river is no longer applicable. When we are looking at the review of Environment Canterbury’s powers for goodness’ sake I hope that we can come to some kind of national agreement around the status of water conservation orders so that we have a consistent process and a consistent status so that people know exactly what kind of protection they are investing their time and energy into to gain protection for these rivers because if they are being constantly eroded ultimately you cannot have a sustainable economy to protect the environment without these factors in place. 
The other thing that I am really concerned about and have found extremely difficult—and I mentioned it in the debate on Part 1—is this continuous justification of using the earthquake to justify both the removal of democracy and indeed the extension of the powers of Environment Canterbury. There is just no way on earth that you can use the earthquake to justify those outcomes. As I said after the earthquake there were some people who went around and broke into people’s homes under the cover of the earthquake. They were highly condemned by the public when they were brought before the courts and rightly so and—[ 
Bell rung 
]—it is the same kind of thinking that is allowing the continuing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Does the member wish to continue? 
MOJO MATHERS 
: I will finish now. Thank you. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on this Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill which raises some serious concerns for this side of the Chamber about the Government’s commitment to democracy. I am disappointed not to hear too many contributions from the Government side of the Chamber defending it and I look forward to hearing from the Minister in the chair the Minister of Immigration shortly who I am sure has a valuable contribution to make on this matter—it is certainly the case that good heads in the south need to be giving this consideration and feeding back just why it is that this decision cannot be taken sooner why full democracy cannot be restored to the people of Canterbury sooner and why Nick Smith’s promises to make sure that the council elections in Canterbury will take place in late 2013 are not going to be honoured. 
It is a disgrace. It is another broken promise by this Government. It is a Government that talked about in its early days having higher standards. It talked about a brighter future. How that language has disappeared from the vocabulary. How it has disappeared from the vocabulary. 
Tim Macindoe 
: And we have delivered. We have delivered. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: We are hearing from the other side that it has been delivered so I would ask the people of New Zealand to judge whether they think that this has been delivered whether they think a brighter future has been delivered. 
Real per capita wages have dropped under this Government and that means if we take out the technical terms that people are hurting because the cost of living has gone up and wages have not kept pace. Inequalities are greater than they have ever been and I do not think that represents a brighter future by any stretch of a long bow. 
It is also a Government that promised not to raise GST and then promptly did. It fits into the pattern of broken promises it is fair to say. We see that the wage gap with Australia that was promised would be closed has this week been announced to have gone up 50 percent—50 percent—since this Government took office in 2008. We are seeing a thousand Kiwis a week leave for Oz. This is I guess typical of a Government that is becoming in the habit of breaking promises. It does have the worst economic record of any Government in New Zealand in the last 50 years as I have been reminded from the other side of the Chamber. 
Nick Smith was very clear even in his Cabinet papers: he proposed that this election be deferred until such time as commissioners have satisfactorily addressed the immediate issues facing Environment Canterbury but no later—no later—than the local body elections scheduled for late 2013. That is not what we are seeing here and it is a great disappointment because we on this side of the Chamber value democracy. We think it is the appropriate way to make sure that we have the leaders in charge of making sure that populations’ interests are taken account of. So we think it is a disgrace that this is not happening. 
The Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford submitted that the view of the Human Rights Commission 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. So we have condemnation from those who have examined the issue. We have a gut feeling we have an uprising in Christchurch and thereabouts saying that this is just wrong and we have many many many other examples that we could draw to mind. Councillor Glenn Livingstone has said there are strong feelings in the city over the issue and that that has been galvanised by the debacle over the restructuring of Christchurch’s schools. 
There is a groundswell of feeling here. There is a view that is shared by the people of Canterbury and shared by all of those people who are concerned for democracy. We need this Government to stump up we need it to announce that there will be proper elections and we need it to honour its promises. We have seen it break too many promises and the people of New Zealand are disappointed—particularly those who did support this Government once upon a time are disappointed that it is failing to deliver. They feel that they have been let down by this Government—and rightly so. We see that people are urging us—I was out there on the street collecting asset sales signatures not so long ago—to petition for an early election because people believe in democracy and they are getting sick and tired of this Government. So I just want to say that is something that needs urgent attention we need basic democratic rights restored and we need the new Minister— 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I want to begin by picking up the point that my colleague Dr David Clark—recently promoted and a well-deserved promotion—the member of Parliament for Dunedin North concluded on and that is the huge disappointment and anger that people in Canterbury feel about this legislation and the primary Act that it is amending. I suppose the most important reason the driving force for the disappointment and anger is the fact that we trusted the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he said publicly consistently and strongly: “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than [the elections] scheduled for late 2013.” We believed the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Some people think we may have been foolish to believe him but I am old-fashioned enough to think that if a member of Parliament says that in this House or out in the public arena if he is quoted in the media if he says so on TV on the radio in the press we should be able to believe them. But we have discovered that that was an absolute direct lie to the people of Canterbury which has made us incredibly frustrated and angry. 
The anger was very evident at the Local Government and Environment Committee hearing in Christchurch. The current member of Parliament for Christchurch Central got very agitated during those hearings when members of the public while presenting their submissions got so upset and expressed it in very strong ways. I know that she is concerned about the impact of this legislation on her wafer-thin majority in Christchurch Central because she has been polling recently. The poll that Nicky Wagner has conducted asked six questions none of which directly related to this bill but actually all of which arose as a result of this amendment legislation. Her poll in Christchurch Central asked how people were going to vote in the next election with their party vote and with their candidate vote and whether they knew who the MP for Christchurch Central was. I would love to see the results of that. I think a lot of them said: “Who cares?”. Then in a very courageous move she asked them to rate her. What did they think of her performance? I would love to see the results of that too. And then she asked whom they had voted for in the last election both in the party vote and in the electoral vote. 
That poll will be reflecting the anger and frustration that Cantabrians feel at this legislation not just taking away our democratic right to vote not just making an absolute liar of the Hon Dr Nick Smith which I think in itself is a pretty offensive thing for colleagues to do but also taking away our water conservation orders and that is referred to in Part 2 in new section 17A(2)(c) inserted by clause 5 “ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3”. Those are the reasons that Cantabrians are so angry. We are losing our vote. We have been lied to. We are very angry and frustrated and disappointed that we believed a Minister who said we would have our right to vote back this year. We were angry that it was taken away but we were assured regardless of the circumstances Nick Smith said that we would have our vote back next year. 
Of course we know that the submissions to the select committee were overwhelmingly reflective of the points I am making—of anger of frustration of extreme disappointment. There were 95 submissions received on this legislation and 90 out of 95 were opposed to it. What bit of that maths is too hard for Government members to understand? Ninety out of 95 submissions said they did not agree with it. People said it undermined their basic democratic rights. Well that is actually not rocket science. That is the point of the legislation. The point of the legislation is to take away our democratic rights. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner was very upset not just about the outcome of this legislation but about the totally undemocratic process that it had undergone in order to be introduced. He talked about the Cabinet paper that accompanied the original legislation. It was specifically stated in the Cabinet paper that the deferral of what was then the 2010 election should be seen only as a temporary measure because of concerns that it constrained the right to public participation. 
I suppose as a member from Canterbury what I am most disappointed about is that the Minister who took over from Nick Smith the Rt Hon David Carter who signed this paper off is also a Cantabrian. I really thought that when the new Minister the Hon Chris Tremain was given the jobhe might say: “You’ve got to be joking.” Why would anyone in their right mind—and I have always assumed that he is in his right mind—why would any Minister in their right mind want their name attached to this filth this bit of dirt this blight on the face of democracy? Why would any Minister want their name attached to it? However I suppose that is the price you pay for getting into Cabinet. But I certainly know that other members would have said: “No—enough. I’d rather make an honest man out of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith.” 
The final point I want to make is one I referred to earlier and it is also alluded to in Part 2. It is the continuation of the removal of the water conservation order processes. In paragraph 45 on page 11 of the regulatory impact statement that accompanies this bill it says this: “The WCO 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 that it does not expect any more amendment applications with respect to the existing Canterbury WCOs and is not aware of any new applications for WCOs in the Canterbury Region.” This is the critical bit. In the Government’s own regulatory impact statement it says this: “On this basis the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Primary Industries”—three critical advisers on this legislation—“consider there is insufficient justification for continuing special provisions for WCOs in the Canterbury region.” Maybe the Government was waiting for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment to say that it is all right to get back to proper processes under the Resource Management Act for water conservation orders. Maybe it was waiting for some sign for the stars to be in alignment. Frankly there is very little else that could happen to give advice to Ministers that this legislation is the wrong thing to do in regard to water conservation orders. 
Their own regulatory impact statement—unanimous advice from the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for Primary Industries—says that this should not happen. And once again we see ignorant arrogant dismissive—I do not know the corrective adjective to use because it just beggars belief to think that a Minister in his right mind would ignore that advice would ignore 90 out of 95 submissions and would ignore I suspect the pleading of the chair of the select committee the current member for Christchurch Central Nicky Wagner. I am sure that she would have raised concerns about this bill. But if she raised concerns about this bill as quietly as she has raised concerns about Phillipstown School no wonder this bill is going ahead and no wonder Phillipstown School is scheduled to close at the end of the year. 
This bill is a huge disappointment. It has caused anger and frustration for people in Canterbury. That was strongly expressed at the select committee. It has made a liar out of a Minister who has recently been returned to Cabinet and I personally am offended at that. I do not think there should be any attempt by this Parliament to position a Minister of the Crown into that position. I am sure the Hon Dr Nick Smith deeply resents it as well. This legislation just frankly should not proceed. It is wrong. In Canterbury we have endured a lot and we have shown how resilient we are. We are now asking for one request to be granted and that is for our right to vote for our own regional council to be restored to us in the way that was promised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. It is not a big ask and it is one that I want Parliament to reflect on. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to just follow on from my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson’s comments. Cantabrians are not just losing the right to vote; they are losing appeal rights. One of the provisions of the existing legislation the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act which was passed in 2010 was to deny Cantabrians the right to appeal regional plans and also changes to water conservation orders. Normally those processes carry with them appeal rights to the Environment Court. I can understand at one level the National Government wanting to sort out the regional water plan in Canterbury. I do not think that that justified the abolition of the regional council back in 2010 but given that that was the Government’s intent I can understand its desire to sort out the water plan. But what I cannot understand is why 3 years after that it needs to retain the right to change that plan without appeal rights to the Environment Court. It is outrageous that not only have Cantabrians lost the right to elect their councillors but they have lost the right—which New Zealanders have in every other part of the country—to appeal provisions and plans that they disagree with to the Environment Court. 
I see with some suspicion that in Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill we have the promise that “The responsible Ministers must begin a review of ECan on 1 March 2014.” Then it says that the review must cover amongst other things “ECan’s powers and functions under Part 3.” It worries me that we are going to see through that review process new proposals that we are not yet aware of that may for example for ever take away the appeal rights on plan provisions in respect of the regional plan of Environment Canterbury. We may also see the abolition of Environment Canterbury and the merger of it with the Christchurch City Council. Neither of those things has been acknowledged by the Government as yet but you wait—you wait. Well not you Mr Chairman. We should wait because I for one am suspicious that there is an ulterior motive here. I cannot understand why else the Government would breach its promise of 3 years ago. 
Su’a William Sio 
: What do you think that might be? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I think the ulterior motives are the reorganisation of the councils in Canterbury to a vast degree and the effective subjugation of those interested in environmental outcomes in the rivers of Canterbury—having their interests subjugated to the more powerful interests of some people who do not want to do enough to improve water quality in the region or who want to extract more water from those lowland rivers particularly than is sustainable. I think that this extension together with these powers and functions of Environment Canterbury that are talked about in Part 3 in respect of their being reviewed as well as looking at the membership of Environment Canterbury—again code for looking at whether it should bring all of these bodies together—portend some future changes for Canterbury that I think will not suit Canterbury well in the long run. 
Can I also endorse the comments of Ruth Dyson in respect of conservation orders. Conservation orders apply only to outstanding water bodies. There are only about 10 conservation orders in New Zealand. There are two or three in Canterbury. I cannot remember which. Is the Ahuriri River within this catchment? Is the Ahuriri River within this or is it the Otago Regional Council? I am not sure. I think it is Canterbury. We have got the Rangitata River— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Waitaki’s the boundary. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No the Waitaki River does not have a conservation order on it. You would need to understand what conservation orders are. It is the Rangitata River the Ahuriri River and the Rakaia River. I think they are the main rivers in the Canterbury region that have conservation orders. The Rakaia River was the first conservation order that was granted in New Zealand. It went all the way to the Court of Appeal. There were scraps between all of the people who had competing claims to it. I actually remember it well because I was a junior in the case before the Planning Tribunal. But that and the other conservation orders that are there are precious. 
It is very very hard to get a conservation order to protect a river. These few rivers that we have protected with conservation orders are listed and have rules for their protection. These few rivers that have conservation orders in the country have special protections that are attached to them that put them beyond the control of the regional council. That is after a very thorough process that starts with the Minister for the Environment having to be convinced that there is a real issue to be looked at followed by a first hearing by a panel that is appointed by the Minister followed by appeals to the Environment Court. The Environment Court eventually makes a recommendation and then the Government of the day chooses whether or not it implements that by way of a statutory regulation which then has force against the regional council. 
These few rivers that we have in New Zealand that have been identified as having outstanding characteristics are truly precious; they really are truly precious. By and large most of them rise out of our national parks and are quite high-volume rivers but none the less they are precious rivers both for the aquatic environment that is maintained through those river flows for fish and for the biota and for the morphology of the rivers which are maintained by decent water flows in these braided rivers and which in turn protect bird habitats and other things. These rivers are absolutely precious and this legislation— 
John Hayes 
: You’ve said that 10 times. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well actually you still have not heard the message. These rivers are precious and they should be preserved for New Zealanders and put beyond the ability of regional councils to modify them. This legislation alters the status quo of those conservation orders and puts them within the jurisdiction of Environment Canterbury without any appeal rights to any Environment Court or anything like that to change. It is wrong it is unprincipled and it puts at risk these precious rivers. 
So the Labour Party for those reasons and others that have been covered by my colleagues wants the Minister of Local Government to explain why it is that it is necessary to strip our rivers in the Canterbury region that are protected by conservation orders from the legislation which protects rivers elsewhere in the country. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 The silence from the Government benches has been quite astonishing and I think it shows that there is nothing that Government members can do to defend this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill and the very spurious reasons that they gave in the first reading for its introduction. As the Christchurch  
Press  
said in an editorial the continued suspension of democracy at Environment Canterbury is “the most radical denial of voting rights that this nation has experienced in recent times” and it is something that “besmirches the Government” and denies Cantabrians a fundamental right. I think it is consistent with what this Government is doing in local government. The Hon David Parker talked about the way in which the bill overrides or denies the right to appeal to the Environment Court. Are we going to see that same denial of rights of appeal to the Environment Court in the local government reforms that the Government introduces later this year? Are we going to see a continuation of the centralisation of power in Wellington and local government regarded as an agent of central government rather than having a mandate in its own right because its councillors are elected and get that mandate from that election? 
What we have seen in Environment Canterbury and in this bill with the denial of appeal rights to the Environment Court the appointment of commissioners and the changes to water conservation orders is a fundamental denial of democracy in Canterbury and we think it is symptomatic of the other changes that this Government is putting on local councils and local government. It is rich because this Government derides the term “nanny State” and yet it is taking an awful amount of power to the State to central government and cutting right across the ability of local government to represent the people that elect it. We have seen that with the changes in the Resource Management Reform Bill which deny the Auckland Council the right to appoint the hearing commissioners to hear submissions on the Auckland Unitary Plan. Here in the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill we have had councillors denied the opportunity as elected representatives to make the policies for the region through regional plans. That has been supplanted with appointed commissioners. Are we going to see the same in terms of changes to local government where we have councils around the country denied their right to make decisions on their plans through increased intervention powers for the Minister in the chair the Minister of Local Government? We have seen that in the Local Government Act changes last year with the Minister able to much more easily intervene. 
Yet this bill that we have now could have implemented the advice of the Minister’s own commissioners at Environment Canterbury. It could have moved to a transitional model. It could have implemented the advice of officials to restore the water conservation order provisions of the Resource Management Act fully in Canterbury. That is why there is Supplementary Order Paper 176 in my name which actually makes changes and inserts a new clause 10 after clause 9 which would restore the law that applies elsewhere in New Zealand to Canterbury in regard to water conservation orders. As David Parker noted there are several water conservation orders in Canterbury. He missed Te Waihora / Lake Ellesmere. There are other rivers that deserve that status. Water conservation orders are the mechanism to recognise that rivers have outstanding values that deserve protection. Both the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and the New Zealand Conservation Authority recognise their value and the need for a representative range of rivers throughout New Zealand to be protected through water conservation orders. What would the Government lose except to admit that it cares about rivers only for irrigation? If it agreed to this Supplementary Order Paper it would be restoring some measure of good faith to water management in Canterbury by making sure that we have the same law across all of New Zealand. 
The Minister has not taken a call recently. I would encourage him to take a call to say why we cannot have the same law in Canterbury in relation to water conservation orders as applies everywhere else. It would be too big an ask of this Government to restore democracy but given the radical denial of our voting rights again without any substantive reasons from the Government I would be interested in the Minister’s comments as to why— 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on this very important Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill involving Environment Canterbury and the temporary commissioners in particular. In doing so I would like to refer to the regulatory impact statement. This was of course published by the Department of Internal Affairs and also by the Ministry for the Environment jointly. For those New Zealanders out there who may be watching this broadcast and who perhaps are not aware of the background to the preparation of papers for Parliament these reports are prepared by officials to give guidance to Government and to Parliament as to the recommendations of the various ministries in terms a particular bill. 
I would remind the Minister of Local Government—the new incoming Minister—and I would remind the members of the National Party sitting on the other benches of what the regulatory import statement stated in regard to the commissioners for Environment Canterbury. It suggested that there were five options. Option one was “Legislation to establish a transitional mixed governing body for ECan (with provision for Minister of Local Government to review the arrangements by 2017)”; that was option one. Option two was “Legislation to establish a permanent mixed governing body for ECan”. Option three was “Legislation to extend or entrench a governing body for ECan of appointed Commissioners”. Option four was the “Status quo - returning to a fully elected governing body under the Local Government Act 2002 and Local Electoral Act 2001”. Option five was “Ministerial direction for an independent review of matters relating to ECan governance”. 
In this particular instance the officials of both of those ministries recommended that option one be the preferred option adopted by Government and by this Parliament. Option one I will remind you was “Legislation to establish a transitional mixed governing body for ECan”—in other words a transition back to elected representation. In that regard the commissioners themselves under Dame Margaret Bazley—probably the most experienced public servant in this country who has led many Government departments and has now a damehood obviously for her services to public service—also recommended that there be a transition back to democratic representation in a mixed governing body. So over a period of a year or two you would have a mixture of the existing commissioners and elected representatives with the intention to then fully return to an elected body in due course. 
That was a sensible solution for everyone. We could all probably live with that. We would say it is not ideal it is not returning to full democracy but it is a step in the right direction. I think the Hon Nick Smith would have been very supportive of that. He gave indications certainly in that direction. It seemed that that was a fair way to go so that everyone would basically get a reasonable shake of the stick out of this whole situation. We would have a situation where those commissioners who have sat there for a couple of years now could have helped the newly elected people to move back into the transition and helped that handover process. That often happens in all sorts of corporate situations and all sorts of governance situations and that is a common model. Certainly that would have been a workable model. It was very interesting. 
So all the advisers were suggesting this—the ministries the commissioners—everyone was advising this. It seemed sensible. But what does this Government do? It does exactly the opposite. It just says: “No. We are not going to have elections. We are just going to leave the commissioners there and we are going to extend this from the 2013 elections out to 2016. We are going to ignore all the advice that we have.” It is a little bit like the way it ignored the advice in Auckland where the royal commission wrote an 800-page report and the Government threw that out and 8 days later Rodney Hide came out with a 34-page report that did exactly the opposite to what the royal commission was recommending. 
That is the modus operandi of this Government that it just ignores the advice. It just ignores the good expertise that it has around it from the ministries from the officials and from the likes of Dame Margaret Bazley. The Government just ignores that and goes with how it wants to do it. That is what the Government does. When you are a money wheeler-dealer and you are trading things around the place and just throwing things in the pot like Skycity and all sorts of other things you just throw things in the pot you run with the hares and then you try to push your way through and forget the actual democratic consequences. 
It is very interesting that this Government is working that way. Interesting too that the Christchurch City Council itself recommended that there be a return to local democracy in Canterbury. There is Mayor Bob Parker and his council saying: “No it’s time that we— 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. I wonder just how much more insult this Government can add to the injuries of the people of Canterbury. It seems that not only the Environment Canterbury debacle but the Christchurch school closures show that the Government for all its using the Christchurch earthquakes as an excuse does not care a jot really about the opinions of people who live in the Canterbury area. 
I just crave your indulgence for a moment because I want to tell a story from Nelson that goes back a couple of years. But it is related to this bill intimately. We all know that Anzac Day services are non-partisan events. Anzac Day services are traditionally moments when we all respect the sacrifice of all of those who gave their lives and were injured in the course of fighting for democracy and freedom. It is extremely rare ever to hear a political speech at an Anzac Day service. Yet two Anzac Days ago in Nelson a returned serviceman of reputation and gravitas in the Nelson area had been asked to be the guest speaker. He started with some of the usual tributes that we pay quite rightly on Anzac Day to fallen soldiers and recounted some of his experience. Then his tone changed and he said that one of the things that he had gone to fight for was democracy and for the freedom for people to be represented by people whom they directly elected. One could hear in the crowd the collective intake of breath amongst the I think more than 1000 people in Nelson in Anzac Park at that Dawn Service. One could hear the intake of breath as they realised where this man was going. He laid very squarely at the feet of the Government profound criticism at the abolition of democracy in Christchurch. This man lived in Nelson. He was not a Cantabrian. He had not been a member of Environment Canterbury. He was not anybody to my knowledge who was intimately involved with any environmental issues in the Canterbury region but he was incensed and outraged that the Government could at the stroke of a pen overturn a democratically elected body and replace it in the way that this Government did. 
It was a shocking speech because as I say we do not expect political speeches on Anzac Day. But it was so profoundly felt by this man and by numbers around him who went up and congratulated him afterwards on being brave enough to mention it and who were distressed and profoundly offended by this Government’s affront to democracy. Add to that then we had—here we go; here is the Nelson connection again—the Hon Dr Nick Smith saying of those changes in March 2010 that “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013.” That is now offended against. The promise that he gave unequivocally has been either completely overturned—perhaps despite Nick Smith’s protestations; I do not know whether he protested about it. I do not know whether he protested about the overturning of the commitment that he had unequivocally made but the upshot is that it was overturned. It is difficult to understand. If one cannot take the word of a Cabinet Minister and believe that that commitment will endure then one’s faith in the Government in this Government in the John Key - led Government is profoundly shaken. 
So there is another broken promise from John Key’s Government. It ended up being a lie from Nick Smith. Whether he intended it to be a lie or not only he knows or perhaps some of his colleagues know as well. But it ended up being a lie. At times that member has had a fleeting relationship with the truth but on this occasion I do not know whether it was intentional or not. Whatever the upshot the whole Government now has to wear the fact that that is a broken promise and that the repercussions of that broken promise go far beyond Canterbury. They have rippled out to Nelson. They have rippled across the country because there are more than just the returned servicemen—like Mr John Gardner spoke at the Anzac Day service in Nelson 2 years ago—who have been offended by this. 
I would like to say a couple of words about Supplementary Order Paper 176 in the name of Eugenie Sage. I think this is an important measure. It goes to the points that my colleague the Hon David Parker was making earlier about appeal rights and also to the points that Eugenie Sage made a moment ago in speaking to her Supplementary Order Paper. The regulatory impact statement prepared on the bill notes that Environment Canterbury the Ministry for the Environment the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Justice all considered that there was insufficient justification for continuing the special provisions for water conservation orders in the Canterbury region. In other words they said there was no reason no sufficient reason to continue to exclude the Canterbury region and the water conservation rights applying there from the procedures that exist everywhere else in the country. Eugenie Sage’s Supplementary Order Paper as I understand it would implement the advice of all those groups. It would implement that advice. It would restore to the Canterbury region the water conservation order provisions that apply everywhere else in the country. 
One could argue that the water conservation orders in the Canterbury region are amongst the most important in the country. If we were to rank water conservation orders—and let us not—it would be hard to find rivers elsewhere in the country that required the protection of conservation orders to the extent that these rivers do. So I would urge the support of the Supplementary Order Paper. I would wish that the members opposite would listen to the people who are distressed about the affront to democracy and the whittling away of protection for those precious rivers as my colleague earlier referred to them in the Canterbury region. This bill is an affront on all sorts of levels. It is an affront to democracy it is an affront to environmental protection and it should be an affront to everybody who cares about the protection of our precious and rare environment in this country. Thank you. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We have an amendment in the name of Eugenie Sage to repeal sections 46 to 59 as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176. This amendment is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Just for the member’s sake in future if a member wishes to move an amendment that is outside the scope it has to be done by way of an instruction and I refer the member to Standing Order 173. That might help in the future if you want to do something outside the scope of the bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We now come to clauses 1 to 3. I just remind members that they are very narrow tight debates specifically on what the clauses relate to. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is it just one debate for all three? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well no at the moment they are separate but if you want to move—oh sorry. The question is that clauses 1 to 3 stand part. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move that clauses 1 to 3 be taken as one debate. Do I seek leave for that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Well yes they are in fact—my apology—so we do not have to put that leave. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak before my colleague Dr Megan Woods. I do look forward to what she will say in the debate shortly as a Cantabrian and someone who has spoken passionately about this issue before alongside her colleague and mine Ruth Dyson from whom I expect we will also hear. 
This is a debate that needs to be had in this Parliament because it is one that affects all of the people of Canterbury as their democracy has been taken away from them. The debate around the title and commencement in clauses 1 to 3 of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill lends itself to some suggestions about of course making sure that democracy is restored sooner but more specifically that the title of the bill is made more appropriate and tighter to what is actually happening in the bill. We see as we canvassed in the earlier debate that rights of appeal are disappearing. So it might be more appropriate to talk about the “Environment Canterbury (Rights of Appeal Removal) Amendment Bill”—that would somehow seem to reflect more nearly what is going on here—or the “Environment Canterbury (Failure to Restore Proper Democracy) Amendment Bill”. 
Paul Goldsmith 
: Is this the modern face of the Labour Party? 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: These are the kinds of things that are happening in this bill that are hidden behind a title that seems somewhat more positive perhaps to those who are at home who hear the simple title as it is expressed on the Order Paper: the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Something is being suggested here that is neutral when in fact the bill has some unfortunate side effects if we can be so kind as to call them side effects. 
Mr Goldsmith across the Chamber was interjecting in the debate and I must say that I look forward also to his contribution because we have had very few from the Government side of the Committee in this debate. There has been a remarkable silence and one wonders why that is when we have a bill that is doing so much harm in the view of the majority of Cantabrians that the Government will not get up and justify this bill— 
Andrew Williams 
: Unjustifiable. 
Dr DAVID CLARK 
: —and perhaps explain why it is choosing to put it through in this way with this kind of generous sounding title when there are mischiefs being done to the people of Canterbury. And my colleague Andrew Williams there says that it cannot be defended and that is perhaps why we have heard so little from the National benches. But I challenge Mr Goldsmith across the Chamber to make a decent contribution one that does attempt to defend this bill because someone has got to stand up and defend it. 
We have not heard anything from the Minister in the chair for some time the Minister of Local Government. He has been very quiet and perhaps he is a little embarrassed. He has had the bill dumped on him. Maybe it should be changed to the “Environment Canterbury (Minister Has the Bill Dumped on Him) Amendment Bill” which would also perhaps reflect something of the dynamic we are seeing in this Parliament. We are certainly not hearing from the Government as to why this bill should proceed. I think the general public are owed an explanation but more particularly those people in Canterbury whose democratic rights have not been restored despite promises in that direction—very clear promises—by Nick Smith previously. 
So I suggest that the Committee does consider those other options. That would make clear the real agenda in this bill so that we are not left with this misleading title that would suggest that the bill is more harmless than it really is. Thank you. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. Clause 1 talks about the title of the bill. Certainly in that title where it says “Temporary Commissioners” that must be an incorrect title. We surely cannot believe that if you do away with local elected commissioners in 2010 and do not intend to replace them until 2016—that is 6 years. That is hardly temporary. Not many people would ever look on something as being temporary when it has a 6-year lifespan and shelf life. In that regard it is quite misleading to say that these are temporary commissioners when in fact they are not. 
In 2010 the National Government said that this would be just a temporary arrangement while it sorted out the Environment Canterbury situation. Then Canterbury got hit with the earthquake 1 year later and there were some understandable difficulties there with the major February earthquake suddenly hitting Canterbury which gave some reason to try to consolidate things in Canterbury and get things back on a level footing. At that time therefore one could understand that there was a need for a temporary situation—a sort of holding situation—to try to get things back on their feet. But having now seen 2 years go by—we have just gone past 22 February which is 2 years down the track from the major secondary earthquake in Canterbury—it is quite false to be still talking about temporary commissioners. When we have heard from all sorts of officials and from Dame Margaret Bazley that there should be a transition back to more permanent and elected people getting rid of the temporary commissioners then certainly that is the way that it should be going. 
New Zealanders have gone to war for democracy for the right to vote and to stand up for what is right and proper in a civilised world. Cantabrians are no lesser people in our democratic system. They also deserve the right to have a vote—to go to the ballot box put their name on a piece of paper and say whom they would like to elect. It is unfair for Cantabrians to be stretched out for 6 years and be told this is a temporary situation. After only 3 years already they are saying: “This is enough. We’ve had enough. We don’t need this to continue.” 
What is happening here is that basically the Government is trying to hide behind the commissioners’ situation and the Environment Canterbury situation in terms of the water rights in Canterbury. The Government is using the democratic process and abusing the democratic process to prop up an arrangement it has put in place for water management in Canterbury. That is a great shame because the two do not necessarily meet eye to eye. You have the needs of the rural community and the farming community and the needs out there on the Canterbury Plains up against the needs and the democratic rights of people living in Christchurch and in the greater Christchurch urban metropolitan area. Quite frankly those things are at odds. It is a shame that this Government is basically giving away those rights to ensure that some of those water arrangements are upheld. 
We at the Local Government and Environment Committee were all very disappointed to hear the Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford say that this was a huge attack on democracy that this was not the correct thing. The people in Canterbury needed some reassurance—they were very delicate. He said that they were very exposed that they were feeling very threatened by their predicament in Canterbury and that the last thing Cantabrians needed was to have their democratic vote and their democratic rights also removed from them. When you are in a difficult situation when you do not have a lot and when you are facing a lot of adversity the last thing you want to lose also is your democratic right. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner said that. He also said—and I know National members of the committee took offence to this—that New Zealand went to war to stop such regimes from occurring in Europe and we cannot point the finger at regimes in Fiji and other places that do not provide democratic rights. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner very clearly said that we stand up for democracy. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call in this debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill as the representative for West Coast - Tasman. We are very conscious of the health and well-being of our visitors “over the hill” as we say there in Canterbury and we are of course alarmed at what is happening here in the Committee. 
 I will focus on the three clauses here. The one word I go to following on from my colleague Mr Williams is “temporary” which is something that we assume means “for a short period of time”. The concern we have is that we have heard many assurances given originally from the Minister Nick Smith. You cannot trust much of what he says on most things I have to say but particularly in this area where he has proven in black and white in this House time and time again to the public of Canterbury to the public of the West Coast to everyone that he was not going to allow the continuation of something. It was in his words temporary but indeed by anyone else’s definition it would not be. 
The word “temporary” means “briefly” “impermanent” “not permanently” “transitionally”. The issue is that by anyone’s definition this is not temporary. It is 6 years by my colleague’s assessment—if we can trust that. How can we trust this piece of legislation when we are given assurances from the mouth of Nick Smith—from the horse’s mouth? He gave us assurances but in fact a court of law has said in respect of that Minister—or member as he was—that you cannot trust what comes from his mouth. 
This piece of legislation initiated by him with assurances given by him is in the Committee and the Government expects us—myself as MP for West Coast - Tasman the good people of Canterbury and the MPs from Canterbury and the South Island—to trust the Government. “Oh this is temporary!” he said. Well clauses 1 2 and 3 deal with the title the commencement and the amendment to the principal Act and in respect of temporary commissioners and improved water management we do not know whether in fact these are permanent appointments that will just be rolled on. Dare I say the outcome of the next election might determine whether the title of this bill is indeed accurate or whether it is as misleading as the assurances given by the Minister Nick Smith at the time. 
So we have an obligation here as representatives in the South Island as Her Majesty’s Opposition to challenge the Government for indeed putting through legislation and putting through a title that is misleading or could be misleading. So once again it comes back to this—and we have raised it dare I say time and time again in speeches in the Chamber: how can we trust this Government? Up and down the country local government and territorial local authorities—the Minister of Local Government will have spoken to them. He will be getting it in the ear I am sure as he goes around trying to patch up the mess left by the Hon Nick Smith. He will be trying to patch it up and trying to build some confidence back. 
There is indeed a collaboration of South Island mayors and territorial local authorities because they know they have to lobby the Government to get a fair deal to get even temporary relief from some of the pressures from central government and the fact that the Government is now going to say: “You’re not going to be able to put up rates but you are going to have to do this and this and this and we will not allow you to do any social programmes in your community.” I have got people jumping up and down now because Tasman District Council is pulling back on social programmes. The Government is saying quite clearly “that is what you have to do” and indeed it does not know where this Government is going with local government reform. 
The title of this bill saying “temporary commissioners for Canterbury” in my view—in my cynical view my suspicious view—is misleading because the Government intends after the next election to push through and appoint more commissioners up and down this country wherever territorial local authorities dare question the Government’s objectives. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 What a misnomer of a title: the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. A much more accurate title for the bill would be the “Environment Canterbury (Denial of Democracy and More Irrigation) Bill”. The earthquakes in Christchurch would be a reason why democracy— 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.