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:10166. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 1 of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. Clause 3(2)(b) I think it is sets up the mixed-model arrangement for the Canterbury Regional Council where there will be seven elected members—up to six members appointed by the Government—but still not a complete return to the democracy that we had in 2010. That—Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is perfectly proper for the member to want to have a debate about those governance clauses but they are not covered in Part 1. The clause that he has quoted is the incorrect number and the contribution he wishes to make should be made during the correct part of the debate.KRIS FAAFOI: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson can I point you to clause 3(2)(b) of the purpose clause which states that the legislation “provides for a new governing body for the Canterbury Regional Council comprising a mix of elected and appointed members;”?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I take the member’s point and it is one of a number of points covered in this first part. However I also take the point the Minister has made which is that they are far more focused on in future parts. So I am not suggesting that the member has contravened the rules just yet but I just bring them to his attention.KRIS FAAFOI: Thank you for your clarification and for the comments of the Minister in the chair the Hon Nick Smith. Well because this Act sets up the new governing body for the Canterbury Regional Council comprising a mix of elected and appointed members which is pointed out in Part 1 I would like to point out to you some of the risk factors that the officials saw in the setting up of this mixed model. These are helpfully on the front page of the regulatory impact statement which is provided for members on the Table if anyone from across the way might want to look at it.The first point that the officials raised around this mixed model which is mentioned in Part 1 was that “Public consultation was confined to a proposal for the preferred option of a mixed-model governance structure rather than the range of options in the RIS.” The question that I would like to pose to the Minister in the chair is why the narrow focus on this mixed model and not a good look at the range of options as contained in the regulatory impact statement that were posed by the officials. If the Minister would like to take the opportunity to talk to that point which was raised by officials around the narrow focus and almost the dumb-minded intent of just looking at one option I would appreciate it—if the Minister could take a call and explain that to us.Helpfully the officials go on because they have concerns around the mixed model that we have here. They go on to say in the regulatory impact statement: “This [model] still limits our ability to present full community views on other options in this Regulatory Impact Statement which were not described in the discussion document.” I would like to point out the point that Clayton Cosgrove I think made that around the Regenerate Christchurch legislation that went through this House last week Gerry Brownlee worked with all parties in this House to get a compromise that everyone was happy with in order to let the people of Christchurch have their voice around the rebuild of that very important city. Yet a different approach has been taken with this piece of legislation and there will not be an effective view around Environment Canterbury. That is another question I want to pose to the Minister: if Minister Brownlee was quite happy to take that approach with the Regenerate Christchurch legislation why in this legislation under this regulatory impact statement has the Minister not taken a similar approach?Again the officials—we are talking about the mixed model which is pointed out in Part 1—go on to another concern: “While based on the District Health Board model the proposed governance model has an element of uncertainty as to its effectiveness as it has not been used previously in a local governance context.” I think that shows that the officials shared some of the concerns—or many of the concerns—that we have on this side of the Chamber as to whether this mixed-model approach will work for Christchurch. When we were debating the Regenerate Christchurch legislation last week there was unanimous feeling around this House that we had to get legislation around Christchurch right. That is why Gerry Brownlee took that approach and that is why I think the Minister needs to explain when there are concerns around the effectiveness of the model that he is proposing for Environment Canterbury why he is taking this approach to take a different approach. Why is he not taking the approach that Minister Brownlee has said will make sure that his legislation is effective for Christchurch but this Minister says it is different?The officials helpfully go on to say: “The appointment of councillors is seen by some as an unwarranted intrusion into Canterbury’s affairs by central government.” In English they are saying that there is going to be no local voice for those people when it comes to this piece of legislation. You would wonder and I would hazard a guess that Mr Smith might get up and say: “Well that is a bunch of lefties—