Logie Jan: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeLogie Jan: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9639. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]JAN LOGIE (Green): It is quite difficult to follow that last contribution and hear that this bill is about confidence and stability and to follow on from previous members on that side of the House telling us that the commissioners are offering incredible skills that it is sensible common-sense management and that really those opposing it are ignorant. Well in response to that and at the risk of being called shrill I would like to quote the Law Society and its submission on this bill. It said: “Representative democracy is a fundamental principle that gives legitimacy to government and the exercise of state power. … The proposed further suspension of full democracy is inconsistent with one of New Zealand’s core constitutional values namely a ‘free and democratic society’.”I am deeply offended to be listening to the members on that side start their speeches by offering congratulations to the Crusaders while this House is continuing to remove the core constitutional foundations of this country for Cantabrians. It is absolutely offensive and if you call me shrill for being upset at the removal of democracy I will take it because the only thing that validates our ability to stand here in this House is people’s right to vote for their leadership. To say that the skill and the management of Environment Canterbury was not doing its job—it is not this House’s job to decide that. It is the job of the people who are paying their taxes and are electing their representatives to decide that. That right has been taken away from the people of Canterbury by this National Government and what this bill does is give them back a half-pie democracy.We are told that the people of Canterbury support this bill. Even with the truncated select committee process and ability of the people to put in submissions there were still 1169 submissions of which 15 supported this bill. That is not support for this bill. There is not support for the ongoing denial of democracy in Canterbury. We hear that the purpose of this bill is the management of the resources and that Environment Canterbury was incompetent and it had to be removed. There has been no investigation. There is no actual evidence of that. We have heard from the Minister that Environment Canterbury was incompetent in managing water. Well actually it was going through a process and all of the work that it did was used by the commissioners 2 months later I understand after they were appointed to put in place a plan for water management across the district. There is no actual evidence of that incompetence. Although I have heard from different members that they thought there was incompetence that is actually a political point to be debated during an election process. It is for the people of Canterbury to decide.I am passionate about this because I think democracy is a core value and is something we have fight to protect—although actually I am ashamed to think that we still have to fight to protect it—but also it is important because we know that democracy is one of the things that helps us protect our environment. Without our environment we are nothing and this is so starkly true in this particular case. What this is about ultimately is a fight over the rights to our environment—the protection of the water in Canterbury. The 15 submitters who supported this bill were those representing the interests of irrigators. It is the irrigators and those who want to exploit the resources against the people and the environment and it is absolutely a shame to see this Government taking away the rights of the people to protect their environment because you know with no environment there is no economy and none of us survive.