When I listen to the debate on the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Bill, it seems to me that we are addressing two issues. We are addressing the issue of democracy—the democracy of the people of Canterbury, in particular—and the issue of water. I will speak to those two issues this evening.
We have been told by the Labour Opposition that this Government has intervened in the democratic process. We have been told by the Labour Opposition that this Government is getting rid of democracy and that it is trying to get rid of obstacles. Labour members talk about an assault on the democratic model. I always enjoy listening to debates on democracy in this House, and this evening the Opposition has focused on democracy in Canterbury. But what concerns me is the much bigger issue of democracy in New Zealand.
Hon Darren Hughes: What of the EFA? He got into Parliament on the EFA.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: That is right—the Electoral Finance Act.
Hon Darren Hughes: He’s so worried about the EFA, he forgets about Canterbury.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: Well, is it not interesting that Mr Hughes wants to talk about the Electoral Finance Act? I actually want to go back before the Electoral Finance Act and talk about the Electoral Finance Bill. The reason I want to talk about the Electoral Finance Bill is that less than 3 years ago, when the current Opposition members were in Government—we have heard for hour after hour this afternoon about democracy, about the rights of the people of New Zealand being usurped, and about those democratic rights being taken away—the previous Government brought into this House a bill that would have required every single New Zealander—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Although the member can refer to other bills that might have been before the House, this bill is specifically about issues in Canterbury. The member is quite entitled to refer to other bills in terms of the points that he is making, but he cannot spend his contribution to the debate solely on those matters.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We fully respect your decision, of course, but consistency with the rulings of Assistant Speaker Barker, who was in the Chair previously, concerns me. We have had entire speeches dedicated to legislation that has earlier been passed, and now an ACT member gets a chance to speak and the rules appear to have adjusted.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member—
Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I will just deal with this. I thank the member for that point of order. This is a second reading speech. First reading speeches are pretty wide, but this is a second reading speech, and I would like the member to focus on the issues. Referring to other legislation that has been passed is fine, but we must come in towards the substance of the debate.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a slightly different point of order from the one that Mr Hide raised. As you know, the House is in urgency considering this legislation, which was not seen until it was presented and introduced by way of urgency. The Speakers’ rulings make provision for members to speak under urgency slightly wider than they ordinarily would on a normal second reading for a bill that has come back from a select committee, in which situation there has been a narrowing down of the bill by the committee, issues have been considered, and members can refer to a report. I think that being under urgency slightly alters the ambience of members. I think that some leeway must be given to Mr Boscawen, particularly in respect of his personal position as someone who came to Parliament worried about democratic issues—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. I have made it very clear. I have said to the member that he can refer to other bills and other Acts, but he cannot concentrate his whole speech on them. This is a second reading speech. The first reading is much wider; this is much narrower.
JOHN BOSCAWEN: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to devote my entire speech to the issue of the Electoral Finance Bill; I also want to focus on the issue of water. But I make just one comment on the Electoral Finance Bill. I remind this House that less than 3 years ago a bill was introduced into this House that required anyone—any single New Zealander—who wanted to speak out against the Government to sign a declaration. Before people spent a single dollar, they had to sign a declaration. They had to go to a justice of the peace and sign a declaration such as: “I, John Boscawen, promise not to spend a single dollar opposing the Labour Government.” For any member of that party to lecture this Government on democracy is a total contradiction.
Let us talk about participation. We have heard that already the forces of opposition to this bill are mounting in Canterbury. We have heard that there will be a protest outside four electorate offices in Christchurch, and I think that is fantastic. I think it is fantastic that the people of Canterbury want to rise up and express a view on democracy, because the last time there was such a protest in Christchurch, it was led by me. I led it, and 300 people walked through the streets of Christchurch—through the centre of Christchurch. It was not the only protest that I led; 5,000 people walked down Queen Street on 1 December.
Let us talk about participation. Let us talk about the right of the people of Canterbury to participate in their local government. It is interesting that the Human Rights Commission has spoken on the issue of participation. In referring to the Electoral Finance Bill, the Human Rights Commission said that “A human rights approach to democratic government requires genuine participation. Genuine participation, in turn, requires an informed electorate.” We do not have an informed electorate when we try to create complex electoral law.
It is also interesting that Mr Burns talked about an “assault on the democratic model,”. He is not the only person who spoke about assault. The Chief Human Rights Commissioner talked about the Electoral Finance Bill being “a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights”. Democracy is important. It is extremely important. No one has done more than this side of the House to stand up for the rights of democracy. I do not know how those four previous Labour Government Ministers have the gall to stand up and preach to the National and ACT Parties about democracy.
We are talking about the management of water and the water resource. Water is a very valuable resource and it is very important for the future wealth of this country that we develop and preserve that resource. That water is about to get a whole lot more valuable, not just because it will be better monitored and better managed but because from 1 July that water will have a much, much higher value. Members might ask themselves what is happening on 1 July. Well, on 1 July the Government is introducing the emissions trading scheme. It is a tax on the people of New Zealand, and every single New Zealander will pay it.
Why is it relevant to water? We heard from the Minister for the Environment this afternoon that over 50 percent of New Zealand’s water resource is contained in the Canterbury region. That water flows down the Waitaki River. The reason the emissions trading scheme has significance for the value of that water is that on 1 July a tax will be applied to electricity that is generated from thermal sources like oil and gas. Any generator who generates electricity from thermal sources will have to pay a tax. They will recover that tax and the price of electricity will rise. Treasury advised Parliament last year that electricity would rise by 5 percent. I realise it is a tight debate, but let me explain the impact on the value of those water resources that the Government is trying to manage for the scheme. With an emissions trading scheme the price of all electricity will rise, but those who generate electricity from renewable sources, from water, will not pay that tax; they will have the benefit of a higher price of electricity and they will make super-profits.
The emissions trading scheme will be a massive tax on the people of New Zealand. It will generate windfall profits to Meridian Energy, and it will significantly increase the value of that water. The increase in the value of the water in the Canterbury region will result in windfall gains. All of the electricity that is generated from the water in the Canterbury region—in the Environment Canterbury catchment—from 1 July will be able to get an extra 5 percent estimated value by Treasury. The generator will not have to pay the tax, which will result in windfall profits to the State generator and to private generators. I remind the House that on 1 July this country is conducting an experiment unlike any other in New Zealand.
On those notes, I say that I am thankful for the opportunity to speak, and I say again that if anyone from Labour has any concerns about democracy, I suggest that they look at the submission of the Human Rights Commission on the Electoral Finance Bill, dated 7 December 2007. Who can forget the words in that submission? The commission stated that the Electoral Finance Bill “represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish, freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process.” Thank you.