Whaitiri Meka: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeWhaitiri Meka: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10862. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tatou katoa. I am pleased to take a call on the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill in the third reading. The aim of the bill is to provide governance arrangements for the Canterbury Regional Council to operate during 2016 to 2019 the local authority election cycle period. Its aim also is to replace the governance arrangements that have been in place since 2010 under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. It also aims to provide for the majority of members on the council to be elected by the people of the Canterbury region. Fourthly its aim is to provide for the continuation of some of the modified resource management processes that have operated under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010 to remain available to the council in order to further progress issues relating to the management of freshwater within the Canterbury region.Labour’s position is that we cannot support this bill. Why? Because Labour stands for local democracy and the principles that uphold it. I thought for the purpose of the House and particularly for the members on the other side I would highlight what those principles are. Local democracy is local autonomy and decision-making where communities are able to contribute to decisions about issues directly affecting local communities and for which they pay. The principle around local differences and issues is that they are best met by designing solutions at a local level. There is a principle about open and transparent processes and a principle around local councils with the autonomy to respond to the range of different needs and priorities that exist in their communities.I listened with intent to both the Minister for the Environment’s contribution and the contribution from the other Minister on the other side of the House as to the justification for why 6 years on we are still requiring the presence of unelected officials. I listened and I heard that back in 2010 it was the worst-performing council and there was a need to change it. I also heard the Minister talk about a water plan already having been designed but the zone action plans have not been completed. I also heard him talk about sensible transitions. But when I listened I thought that if you designed fair enough water plans for Canterbury that is probably the precise time when you want to transition out and leave the implementation at the local level to those who are best geared to implement those water plans. So I did not hear enough from the Minister to justify another 3 years of unelected officials.I want to make it very clear that I acknowledge the expertise of Dame Margaret Bazley of Professor Peter Skelton and of course of David Caygill—whom the Minister acknowledged—but at the end of the day I too stand with the people of Canterbury and believe that they have the capability to run their own affairs. I sit here and think why is Canterbury so special that for 9 years—9 years which is what this bill is going to do—the people of Canterbury cannot manage their own affairs? It is unacceptable to accept that rationale for why we are extending this arrangement. Given that the Minister himself has said the commissioners have done some great work—they have put in the water plans—there is not enough justification from what I heard the Minister say to warrant continuing this arrangement for another 3 years.I want to turn the House’s attention to the regulatory impact statement in terms of the first key risk as noted in the statement. The very first risk that the Ministry for the Environment identifies is: “Public consultation was confined to a proposal for the preferred option of a mixed-model governance structure rather than the range of options …”. There were no options that were put out for public consultation other than this model so we have lost the opportunity to explore what arrangements the people of Canterbury themselves would have wanted to be governed under. Further down in the regulatory impact statement another point that is made is that “the appointment of councillors is seen by some as an unwarranted intrusion into Canterbury’s affairs by central government”. I did not hear enough from the Minister to justify the appointment of this transitional and mixed-model governance arrangement. I did not feel that that—again 6 years on—justifies that we have to have this arrangement. I believe the people of Canterbury do have the commitment and the tools to govern themselves. It is unfair to say that water management is getting better under this particular model and those people most affected are left out of the process.So I stand with members from Canterbury on this side of the House—who have objected from the first reading of this bill to this third reading—to say that it is not democratic. It is not what the people of Canterbury either want or deserve and it behoves me to say that yet again the rights and the interests of the good people of Canterbury have been sidelined. That is why I stand on this side of the House with Labour members to say that we cannot support this bill. Thank you very much.