Faafoi Kris: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeFaafoi Kris: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:10167. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Just before I was interrupted by the buzzer I was raising the point that there is a concern for some that there is unwarranted intrusion into Canterbury’s affairs by central government. That was on the front page of the regulatory impact statement. In essence it was that Christchurch would not have a local voice. You might think that the Government might say that that was lefties tree-huggers who do not think they are getting listened to in Christchurch. But funnily enough it was the Law Society that submitted at the select committee that it was the local voice that was being taken away.So I will take this opportunity to quote directly from the submission from the Law Society because I think it very much succinctly encapsulates many of the concerns that we have on this side of the Chamber around the lack of democracy that is contained within this bill. Its submission said—and I think this is also very much its submission that it made on the 2013 amendment Act: “Underlying the reasons and the Amendment Bill is a concerning idea: that effective leadership at a regional level at least is best achieved through a non-democratic and non-representative institution.” The Law Society says: “This is misguided. The failure to involve citizens in regional decision-making that affects them so directly and to draw directly on their knowledge and expertise often has adverse and unexpected consequences. History has long shown the perils of non-democratic leadership a matter that the New Zealand Government has railed against within the Pacific region.”So to have this quasi mixed-model arrangement for Canterbury has been pointed out by many many bodies as well as political parties as not being the best fit for Christchurch. I think in a city where we need to get the rebuild right where we need to get some of these issues around resource allocation right that the people of Christchurch are entitled to have their voice. The people of Christchurch should not be fooled by the fact that the Government says this is a transition back to democracy. It is still holding back full democracy which they fully deserve. They fully deserve it. They do not deserve some mixed model of: “Well you can have seven and we’ll appoint six.” Their votes should have exactly the same effect as votes for the Wellington region where I will get to choose the members who will be on the Greater Wellington Regional Council.A political impasse around resource allocation is not a good enough reason to take away democracy from Canterbury and that is what this is all about. It is not about people not getting on. It is not about taking away democracy. It is not about a rebuild. It is about this Government saying: “Well we can’t get what we want done under the democratic votes that happened in Christchurch under that frame because there is an impasse.” So instead of letting democracy sort that out and waiting for the next election potentially and putting forward its case—even if our side of the equation lost that democratic argument that is democracy. But instead of saying “Let’s let democracy win and put our case.” it says: “Well to hell with democracy. Let’s get rid of the people who were elected on to this board to make sure we get the result that we want.” I think that New Zealanders around this country regardless of whether they are from the Canterbury region or not will be very very concerned that this is the third time—not the first not the second; it is the third time—that we are implementing this legislation to take away their local democratic voice.The Government may have genuine concerns around resource allocation in Christchurch around water rights but changing the democratic functions of Environment Canterbury is not the way to fix this problem. We told them that in 2010 we told them that in 2013 and now it is going to be 2019 before the people of Christchurch get to elect a full board of Environment Canterbury. Nick Smith is to blame for that because he says that democracy should not win and that his Government should win because they want to get a certain outcome. In this House and as has been pointed out by the Law Society we do not want that to happen in the likes of the Pacific but it is fine here in New Zealand. I think the Minister should explain himself as to why he thinks it is not OK in the likes of Fiji and we encourage democracy in Fiji but it is OK in Canterbury. Get up on your feet and answer that question.