Cosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — In CommitteeText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeCosgrove Clayton: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — In Committee[Sitting date: 05 April 2016. Volume:712;Page:10163. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): Denis O’Rourke in his closing comments made a very interesting and valid point. He called on the Minister in the chair Nick Smith to justify why after sacking Environment Canterbury in 2010 then breaking his word along with the Prime Minister in 2013 when he said he would reinstate full democratic elections he is extending out further transitional provisions and enabling the Government to appoint a large component of councillors—up to six I believe with seven or so elected councillors—mainly from of course as the Minister knows rural areas. One could make a rather interesting series of conversations about gerrymandering and other things. I could perceive where a number of those elected Environment Canterbury folk will stack up as opposed to those who are appointed. But Mr O’Rourke made the point—and it is a fair question which I put to the Minister as well: why the extension?In 2010 the Minister in the chair sacked Environment Canterbury. In 2013 he said: “No we will reinstate them.” Then he extended it again. He broke his word—absolutely broke his word. It has been reported on time and time and time again within this House. Then we move right through to 2019 and the Minister expects us to stand up and take him at his word again—take another sort of Nick Smith Lotto ticket—that he will not come back and pull the wool over Cantabrians.The other interesting thing about this bill is that last week the Minister might recall his colleague Gerry Brownlee with a lot of consultation and a lot of cooperative effort to give him credit decided to take on board the concerns of Cantabrians and submitters in respect of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill in order that Cantabrians take the power back to a large extent—with Crown input which is appropriate—and take control if you will in partnership with the Government in respect of regenerating Christchurch. I think that was a pretty good process. The Minister listened and he accepted that we have got smart people in Christchurch and Canterbury who are chomping at the bit to shoulder more responsibility in these big issues—and they are huge issues—in respect of the earthquake in Canterbury. The political forces across the aisle acknowledged submitters and political parties listened to them and it was agreed that Cantabrians were smart were responsible and could be masters of their own destiny.Yet fast forward to a week later and we come to this bill and now of course we get a whole historic litany of justification: firstly for why it was that the Minister sacked Environment Canterbury then secondly why it was that he broke his word in 2013 but there is no explanation as to why this bill does what it does because what this bill does is continue to perpetuate the fact that Nick Smith broke his word—9 years it will be. It just perpetuates that issue. There has not been one explanation from the Minister as to why Cantabrians cannot rule their own roost and why they require to be babysat by commissioners who are unaccountable commissioners—and I will not get into quality or lack of quality. I think there are many things the commissioners have done that are pretty good but the point remains that they are answerable to that Minister and they are answerable to this Government.In the old days you could go to an Environment Canterbury councillor like an elected MP and say “Look I’ve got a problem” and you could hold their feet to the fire. The truth is that those commissioners are not responsible to the people of Canterbury nor accountable to the people of Canterbury. They are responsible to that man sitting in that chair and his Government like those whom he will appoint to babysit the component of elected—mainly rural but elected—Environment Canterbury councillors who will be elected in respect of this piece of legislation. So we have got Gerry Brownlee who says “Listen to the people Cantabrians are smart. We are going to give them what they asked for. They are smart enough they have the spirit to actually start shouldering a major chunk of the responsibility or greater chunks of responsibility in Canterbury” and then we have this guy who says “Oh no no. They’re not smart enough; they cannot be trusted.” By the way not only can we not trust those elected but also of course by default the Minister is saying he does not trust the people of Canterbury to elect from their number smart professional people who will actually do the job. Nick Smith does not trust the people of Canterbury. That is effectively what he is saying because—[Bell rung] Mr Chair—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Chair—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Sorry; I have called the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: A day late a dollar short—nothing changes. I say to that Minister that he should actually give an explanation as to why he does not trust the people of Canterbury because as I have just said before he tried to jump in with one of his usual efforts by not allowing full elections—full elections where all Cantabrians can elect leaders from among their number—he is effectively saying that he does not trust those constituents to elect smart people. That is essentially what he is saying.It would be really good to get an explanation—not the histrionics we have heard in the speeches about what went on in 2010 and the justifications for breaking his word in 2013. No no. The Minister purports that this is a forward-looking piece of legislation. Well I invite him to look in his crystal ball and forward-look and give us an explanation as to why he does not trust the constituents whom Mr Doocey and other members—Ms Woods and others—represent in Canterbury. I invite him to tell us why he does not trust them and why he thinks that the people they will elect the small component they will elect will not be smart enough will not be up to it and will not be trustworthy. There is a question for the Minister. There is a forward-looking question and I look forward to the answer—not histrionics.There is such a contrast between this piece of legislation and the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill so maybe he should elbow his colleague Gerry Brownlee who does reside in Christchurch and who does understand the people of Canterbury and he demonstrated that last week. Maybe he should give him one in the ribs and say: “Gerry why is it that you trust the people you represent but I sit in Nelson and I don’t trust these Cantabrians? I know it is not a rugby thing but why don’t I trust them? Why don’t I trust them? Why do I know better?”. This Minister is great at telling us why he knows better than anybody else why he knows better than his mate Gerry Brownlee—who does trust his fellow citizens—and why he knows better than the people of Canterbury. He has demonstrated that he has broken his word. He has demonstrated that he cannot justify this continuing. I ask him now to demonstrate why he does not trust Cantabrians.