Williams Poto: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Second ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWilliams Poto: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Second Reading[Sitting date: 10 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9641. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It is unfortunate that the previous speaker Nuk Korako has chosen to rewrite history in his speech. There is definitely no doubt that democracy has been diminished in Canterbury when after this period of time—6 years of commissioners—they have not achieved what they set out to achieve. After 6 years has water quality improved in the Canterbury region? It has been a big no—a big no. Not just a small no but a big no.The Government has asked us to trust it with our water quality in the Canterbury region when we know that right across the country it has failed repeatedly at restoring water quality to any condition of which we could be proud. And it is asking us again to trust it with another 3 years when 6 years of failure is its legacy to the people of Canterbury. Six years of failure and another 3 on top and what will happen after that point—what will happen after this 3 years? Will it then decide that it needs another 3 years to fiddle with Canterbury’s water quality? It is not good enough for the people of Canterbury to have this imposed upon them. We deserve to be able to elect the people whom we charge to have our best interests at heart and if they do not do a good job then like any other democratic process the people will speak and other people will come in to take that role from them.This process has been designed to force this bill through without appropriate scrutiny from the people of Canterbury or by the Local Government and Environment Committee. When you hold a process of consultation over the summer period when people are away from their home environment and on holiday and when you truncate the select committee process this does not speak to a process where you are wanting to completely and fully engage the community and fully consult with the community. That has been the problem all along from the very beginning when the commissioners were put in over the top of elected representatives. It has taken the voice of the people completely out of the process.I want to challenge what one of the previous speakers said—that the people of Canterbury want this—when overwhelmingly the submissions that were made to the select committee said the people of Canterbury want to return to a fully democratic process where they can elect the representatives for Environment Canterbury to do the things that they need them to do and not to have this. It is half-pie. Half-pie is half good and half good is not good enough. We want full pie—we want it to be completely good.Jan Logie: We deserve full pie.POTO WILLIAMS: We absolutely deserve it. Our community has been through enough and we have had Ministers with special powers—war-time powers—able to make decisions in our city for long enough. This is another example of this Government’s heavy-handedness in Canterbury. It is a cautionary tale. It is a cautionary tale because this could be any city council around the country. It could be coming to you there in Auckland; it could be coming to you here in Wellington. It could be coming to you soon. If the Government decides that a fully elected city council is not operating in the Government’s best interests well look out. It can put in some commissioners. It can take democracy away from the people and that is not good enough.We have opposed this bill vehemently. My colleagues have spoken very passionately about the aspects of this bill that we oppose. I just want to reiterate: it is about the loss of democracy and it is about the loss of the voice of people who for the last 5 years have been engaged in a process where they have not been completely consulted on the rebuild of their city or on which buildings can actually be demolished. They are not full participants in decisions around earthquake recovery and here yet again the power to control one of the most precious resources in our country is taken out of the hands of the people of Canterbury. The select committee process was truncated. The ability for people to actually be heard with submissions overwhelmingly in opposition to this bill—all of this has been ignored by this Government. I for one join my colleagues on this side of the House to vehemently oppose this bill.