Williams Poto: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 13 October 2015. Volume:709;Page:7137. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It has been an interesting first reading debate thus far. There are a couple of points that I want to touch on. In 2010 the Government removed a democratically elected regional council organisation—it removed it. When we talk about democracy we talk about one person one vote and the ability for that person’s voice to be heard in the democratic process. I am concerned that the Government felt its duty was to override the interests of the democratic process in what would appear to be a favouring of the interests of those people who really had an interest in the rural environment over the urban environment. One of our previous speakers talked about the schism between the rural/urban environments and I feel that the removal of the Environment Canterbury councillors actually shifted the balance in the other direction unfairly and was not a democratic process. If there had been such an issue then the will of the people should have been sought and another opportunity to vote should have been given.When you look up the model that the Government is proposing—the mixed model of governance—when you google it all you get is Environment Canterbury. It is not a model that is widely used. In fact it is used nowhere else in the regional council environment. It is not a model that is widely used. We are going to go from a Government-imposed model to one that is not tried and true. Here again Cantabrians are guinea pigs.When you look at the regulatory impact statement and look at what the commissioners were actually required to do the whole idea was that we were going to “streamline the planning process. Part 3 of the ECan Act empowered ECan to: make changes to a plan or regional policy statement or to make a variation to a proposed plan or regional policy statement through a limited appeals process;”. Yet again it stripped out the ability to go back to Environment Canterbury and say—as an individual as a farmer or as an organisation—we actually want the right of appeal. We have had that process limited.Let us have a look at the “Problem Definition” in the regulatory impact statement—the reason that we have got this bill before the House. The expiry of the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act at the local body elections is October 2016 assuming the commissioners themselves do not stand. The reason that we are doing this and extending this for a further 3 years is that “their collective skills expertise and institutional knowledge will be lost at a single point in time at ECan’s leadership level.” It is as if the commissioners have been operating in a vacuum and that the people of Canterbury do not know how to run their own affairs—that we need for them to hold our hands for a further 3 years.Further on in the regulatory impact statement is another problem definition: “In addition the new leadership would not have available to them the resource management powers and processes under Part 3 of the ECan Act.” which I described before. So that is to make changes to a plan or a regional policy statement and again there is a limited appeals process—[Bell rung] Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. That was so soon Mr Assistant Speaker. There is so much more to talk about on this bill which is undemocratic to the people of Canterbury.So after 6 years of a Government-controlled Environment Canterbury we are still not going to have the ability to control our own affairs. I do not buy the argument that we are unable after 6 years to take back the reins of our regional council. I do not buy the argument that changes in leadership will create a vacuum and that we cannot control these affairs ourselves. I do not buy the argument that it will require nearly 10 years of Government interference in order to provide stability to the environment. I do not buy these arguments. I look forward to my future contributions on this bill.