O'Rourke DenisDENIS O'ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will enthusiastically support this bill because a call for fully democratic regional government in Canterbury now is a perfectly valid call. The comments by members opposite only show how utterly out of touch they are with the feelings of the people of Canterbury. Nine years is far too long for a return to a fully elected regional council in that province; 6 years was easily long enough for the commissioners to do whatever they felt they needed to do—and I thank them for their service but it is time for them to go. Their time is over. Whatever it was that they needed to achieve they have had time to do and it is high time they went.Local government is fundamentally about representative democracy. Therefore when commissioners are needed their term must be short. Six years is not short; 9 years is frankly ludicrous. The people of the region will become disillusioned with local government altogether and give up on the democratic system if they feel they are not engaged with it—and we can see that in the low turnout that happened in last year's elections. The damage in that respect in Canterbury has been huge because of the grossly unnecessary delay in returning to a fully elected council. It was troubling enough when the commissioners were appointed for more than 3 years; it is absolutely totally wrong for them to be appointed for a term of up to 9 years.The Government claimed when it passed the bill for the current hybrid council that we needed a stable Environment Canterbury with specialist skills". It said those skills were firstly the management of fresh water. Well that is not exclusive to appointed people. Elected people are more than capable of handling that. It also referred to "local authority governance and management". Well appointed people cannot do that at all. It referred to "knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people". I would have thought that elected people can actually do that much better than appointed people could do. So when you look at the reasons that are given in the current legislation empowering the hybrid council they do not justify any appointed members at all. They justify only elected people.The Government has also claimed that it wanted continuity. That means continuity of the commissioners—or at least some of them; half of the current council. But the issue is not continuity for them; it is continuity of democracy which is the normal state and the proper state for local government in local communities. Local government as a democratic function is an absolute right for local communities and should be abrogated only for very very good reasons and for the shortest possible time. Nine years gets nowhere near those criteria.Lip-service only to democracy has been painted by the current Government. It is not really interested in local government at all especially the member who spoke last on that side of the House Paul Foster-Bell. He talked nonsense. He said that he was for democracy and then gave a speech against it. That is absolutely shocking and completely unacceptable.The last thing I want to say in the last few seconds is that the current Act providing for the hybrid council says that "Environment Canterbury must review" the arrangements for the regional council that is to happen after 2019. That means that appointed people are going to be sharing in the decision as to what the new so-called democratic council is going to be. That is utterly wrong and also shows just how out of touch and how uninterested in local democracy that party across the House is. They are not interested in local democracy. Their opposition to this bill proves it. This bill rectifies all the problems with the current hybrid council and it needs to be passed."