Foster-Bell PaulPAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): E Te Mana Whakawā Tuarua tēnā koe. I am speaking against this Environment Canterbury (Democracy Restoration) Amendment Bill and—unlike the previous speaker Eugenie Sage implied—it is not because I have any problem with democracy; in fact I am a great supporter of democratic institutions and methods of appointing governance bodies.The current arrangements that are in place for Environment Canterbury do not represent an abrogation of democracy. Need I remind the House that just 2 months ago we actually had elections for Environment Canterbury? And would members opposite claim that a district health board for instance is an abrogation of democracy? District health boards which were in fact put in place by the previous Labour Government that use exactly the same method of determining the members of their governance body—that is a combination of those elected and those appointed.But the point I would make first before delving into any of the details is that these issues have been quite well canvassed in recent select committee hearings—recent as in the last 12 months—in Christchurch. We heard from those who suffered from the failures of the previous Environment Canterbury body. So when we hear pleadings from the other side that there was no fault found in Environment Canterbury by the Creech report we know this is not the case and these are not the lived experiences of people who had to tolerate the incompetence and the inability of Environment Canterbury—as it previously was formed—to arrive at decisions.We heard passionate arguments from for instance the disability community in Christchurch who very credibly claimed before the committee that the situation for disabled passengers for instance on public transport—for which Environment Canterbury has responsibility within that region—has improved massively under the current arrangements. They paid enormous credit to Dame Margaret Bazley and others—appointed members—who they said had brought into place much much better much more respectful much more accessible systems for those with disabilities who rely on public transport. This was a lamentable failure by the previous Environment Canterbury governance arrangements; they let down one of the most vulnerable sections of our community. So when members opposite claim that they were doing their job and doing it well they should actually hang their heads in shame at that failure to look after some of the most vulnerable people in this country.The previous Environment Canterbury failed to deliver a plan for the use of water in the region. One of the most important and one of the most fundamental duties that it was given by the people of Canterbury was freshwater management—and it failed again lamentably in that. So I make no apologies for the arrangements that have been put into place by this Government: firstly to bring in commissioners; and then the transitional arrangements that have only just recently been introduced and that recently involved an election with a combination of appointed and elected councillors which is working well for the people of Canterbury. Certainly that is the evidence we heard on the committee.As the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Mr Scott Simpson—the very fine member for Coromandel—said during his contribution that this bill is redundant: it seeks to amend an Act that is no longer in force. So as he mentioned there is the hastily drafted Supplementary Order Paper 251 which seeks to amend the unfortunately completely irrelevant and out-of-date member's bill that the member allowed to continue to go forward in the ballot.But in my view we have just elected a local and regional council in Christchurch and we have a process in place—and it is a very sensible and pragmatic process in place—to see a transition to fully elected councils in that area in 2019. But we are doing that in a controlled and sensible way—not the chop-and-cut approach that Dr Woods is suggesting in her frankly embarrassing and ill-advised member's bill that for some reason she failed to withdraw from the ballot when in fact the legislation that it amends has been changed. This will slow progress and lead to instability in Canterbury. This is something that the people of Canterbury do not need and for that reason this bill must not progress.