Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 February 2013. Volume:687;Page:7814. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 I take it this microphone is working? It is. Well that was an extraordinary speech. Nicky Wagner is obviously orbiting in a stratosphere that no one else is. She got up and said that there is overwhelming support for this bill the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill inherent within which is a massive broken promise from the Government but we will get to that in a minute. Nicky Wagner’s defence of this bill and the evidence that she provided for her claim that Cantabrians overwhelmingly support an abrogation yet again of their democratic right to have a say in their regional local government was that Federated Farmers which is sort of the National Party in gumboots Ngai Tahu and a couple of others—in fact I think that was it—had said that this was a good thing. Yet what she failed— 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Local Government New Zealand. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh Local Government New Zealand of course—highly representative is Local Government New Zealand of grassroots Cantabrians. Federated Farmers—highly representative overwhelmingly of 350000-plus grassroots Cantabrians. But what she failed to acknowledge given that I think—was she on the Local Government and Environment Committee? I think so. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: She is it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh she is the select committee. She failed to acknowledge a thing called submissions. People get to have their say directly before a select committee through a thing called submissions. If you look at the submissions there were 95 of them. How many were in support? Five. How many were opposed? Ninety. Even Nicky Wagner and Gerry Brownlee could probably do the math using all their fingers and toes and work out the percentage on that. Five submissions out of 95 supported it and 90 submissions out of 95 opposed it. So I say to Ms Wagner that that is called evidence before her own select committee which of course she conveniently failed to mention apart from Federated Farmers Local Government New Zealand and Ngai Tahu. 
I will tell you what this is about. This is about a massive broken promise by this Government. Nick Smith said in March 2010: “whatever the circumstances the next regional council elections in Canterbury will take place no later than those scheduled for late 2013. The explicit intent is for the commissioners to withdraw and be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systematic issues are resolved.” That was a cast-iron promise. I remember the debate. I remember us providing warnings that this could be rolled over yet again. But we were told by the Government “No no no.” that we were being negative that this was all about doing the right thing and that this was a cast-iron pop-riveted vulcanised promise. Well the Government broke it. That member Nicky Wagner broke it and the best she can do today is cobble together a number of untruths to say that the overwhelming number of people in Canterbury and overwhelming numbers of Cantabrians support the bill. Well that is piffle—absolute piffle. If you look at what business people have said and if you look at what grassroots community members have said that is total piffle. I say this to Ms Wagner: people in Canterbury where I live and other colleagues live have had a bit of a gutsful of being steamrolled by this Government whether it be by of course Gerry Brownlee’s promises around the earthquake; Gerry Brownlee’s “my way or the highway” sort of blunderbuss steamroller management style around the earthquake; or his promise about things like if you make improvements to your house that will be part of the deal—a broken promise. They have had a bit of a gutsful of being told what to think what to say and how to act and being told to shut up and take the medicine. 
Actually people in Christchurch and Greater Canterbury would like to have some say—like to have some say—and make a contribution to their own future. But this Government of course says that it knows best. It is interesting because in the select committee report—have a look at it—the Chief Human Rights Commissioner David Rutherford said this: “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 the legislation—is an abuse of the democratic process and does not reflect the real needs of Cantabrians … In our view the present legislation has the potential to further exacerbate the resentment that has arisen in Canterbury as a result”—these are very interesting words for the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to use—“of autocratic decision making.” That is what the Chief Human Rights Commissioner says. 
Then we get of course to the regulatory impact statement. The Government ignored the regulatory impact statement. We know that the Department of Internal Affairs’ advisers and the Ministry for the Environment’s advisers recommended option one which was legislation to establish a transitional mixed governing body for Environment Canterbury with the provision for the Minister of Local Government to review arrangements by 2017. The Government rejected that. It absolutely rejected that. The regulatory impact statement of course went on to say this—it made three points; I will read this one—“The extension of the Commissioners’ terms would continue to deny Canterbury residents the opportunity to vote for representatives on ECan. Also given the progress made by the Commissioners there is no apparent reason for continuing this level of intervention which was used in response to ECan’s previous serious and systemic dysfunction.” That is what the regulatory impact statement said that is what the Government’s own advisers said and it rejected that advice. 
So what have we got stacking up? We have got 90 out of 95 submitters saying that they oppose this bill. We have got the vast majority of Cantabrians—apart from the Government’s Federated Farmers mates—saying that they oppose it. We have got the Government’s own official advisers—the Department of Internal Affairs and the Ministry for the Environment—recommending a transitional provision and a different course of action leading to democratic processes. And we also have the actual regulatory impact statement saying that this is undemocratic that it is autocratic and that it is wrong. Of course to cap it all off as Nicky Wagner hides behind her desk we had one of the biggest broken promises articulated in this Parliament—in this Parliament. Why is it that Ms Wagner the member for Christchurch Central does not trust her own community to be part of decision-making processes? Maybe like Gerry Brownlee she fears this fact that the community may stand up and say: “We do not agree. We believe Government that you are wrong and we want a different course of action.” I suspect that that is why these people do not want Cantabrians to have a say. They do not want to listen to any alternative advice. 
We had Bill English before the select committee—sorry we had the manufacturing inquiry I digress slightly on Monday. I asked the former president of the Manufacturers and Exporters Association whether he had had engagement with Minister Joyce the Minister for Economic Development. No none—zero since he took the portfolio. The association has offered to speak and offered to meet and the Minister does not want to know. That is yet another example of this Government taking advice from everybody else that suits its purpose taking advice from yes-people. 
Even if you look at economic policy the IMF the Reserve Bank and Treasury all say that we are heading for the rocks in respect of the deficit but Bill English of course says that he knows better than everyone else including we found out today the Westpac bank. This Government takes advice from those who will doff their hat tug their forelock and say: “Yes we agree.” I worry that even in our Public Service the days are gone of public servants being allowed to give free and frank advice without fear or favour such that they can say to a Minister: “Minister we believe that your course of action is wrong but we are professionals. If you deem it appropriate to go down that path even though we think it won’t work we will implement it for you because we are a professional Public Service.” That is appropriate advice to say: “We think you’re wrong but will do what we’re told because you are the elected Government.” I fear that like this legislation this Government has dumbed down our Public Service to the point where it has just given up. There is no point in saying that something will not work—whether it be charter schools whether it be the student ratios whether it be this bill or whether it be the school closures in Christchurch—the Government is going to do it anyway; it will not listen to the advice. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Sounds like the Treasury advice to Michael Cullen. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I say to Ms Wagner and old smoke ball the cigar man down in the front row that I look forward to the local body elections when Ms Wagner will be called to account in the next 12 months by her— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Nastiness. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I will tell you what is nasty: it is denying people the right to have a say and denying people the right to have a vote. That Minister Coleman is more than nasty; that is autocratic. But that member does not want to know. It will be an interesting local body campaign as people call Ms Wagner to account and ask why it is that the member for Christchurch Central will not allow Cantabrians the right to have their say why it is that she broke her promise and why it is that there is an autocratic rule down there. 
The other problem with commissioners is that they are answerable to this crowd not to the electors. They have no responsibility to local electors and they are not held to account by them. They do what they are told up here and that is wrong. It is autocratic. This bill should be opposed with every fibre we have in our bodies.