O'Rourke Denis: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 05 May 2016. Volume:713;Page:10866. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Nine years is far too long for a return to a fully elected regional council in Canterbury. Six years is easily long enough for the commissioners to have done the job that they set out to do and they have done a good job. Others have said that and I agree. They have overseen the establishment of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy but that job is done and they proudly say so themselves. The strategy properly balances economic development with sustainable freshwater objectives. There is no way of going back now. Actually clause 23 of the bill says this: “In considering any proposed fresh water plan or regional policy statement during the transition period Environment Canterbury must have particular regard to the vision and principles of the Canterbury Water Management Strategy …”. That actually entrenches the strategy right now in this bill. So why would it be necessary to continue having the appointed commissioners to do just that when in fact that would have to be done in the bill by the elected members if only they were elected.Local government is fundamentally about local democracy a representative democracy. Where commissioners are appointed their term must be the shortest possible term otherwise the representation completely disappears from local government and that is what has happened in Environment Canterbury over the last 6 years. By having this hybrid model you actually get the worst of both worlds. You get neither a genuinely representative body nor one that is free from either the actuality or the perception of central government’s influence and those things are important. In addition to that you will inevitably get a them-and-us attitude arising in the council itself and that will not be positive.I want to move on to the question of Ngāi Tahu representatives because New Zealand First opposes that provision in the bill as well. Ngāi Tahu is to appoint two of the Government’s first three appointments out of a maximum of six. New Zealand First’s policy generally is that people must not be appointed to elected bodies whether they are elected councils or other bodies. New Zealand First says that provision is just as bad as the one that requires the appointment of the other commissioners as well. Both provisions are undemocratic and should not be in the bill.The Government claims that what it wants is a stable Environment Canterbury with specialist skills. If you look at clause 11 those skills are spelt out and they are listed and one of them is the management of fresh water. That skill is not exclusive to appointed people and in fact in Canterbury there are a lot of people who could be and will be elected to Environment Canterbury who have those skills in great measure. Another one is local authority governance and management but there are actually more people available in Canterbury with those skills than there would be available for appointment and they would be just as good. In addition to that there is knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people but in fact elected people are much more likely to have those skills than any who could be appointed. So when you look at that objective for skills they are better fulfilled by elected people than they would be by appointed people. So the Government’s justification utterly vanishes for that reason.In addition to that the Minister has said that he wants to see continuity. Well what is the magic about continuity? The real issue is not continuity; the real issue is an appropriate mix of skills of the people to serve on Environment Canterbury and as I have just said that can be done easily and fully with elected people. In fact the bill does not even mention continuity at all so I do not even know why the Minister raised the issue. It is completely irrelevant as in fact is the rest of his argument to try to justify the appointment of people to Environment Canterbury.The Government is paying only lip-service to local democracy in the bill by having some of the members elected and the rest appointed. It is really a hybrid council that will result. It would not be in any way democratic and democracy would be compromised by the fact that there are appointed members even if they are not in the majority. A full return to democracy is essential after these 6 years finish this year—that is essential. Because Environment Canterbury has already lost its credibility as a representative body with the people of Canterbury they just do not see it as their council any more. That has gone and it is not going to be easy to get back.This bill will make it worse and not better. It should not go on for another 3 years to make it a staggering 9 years in total. It is one thing to dismiss elected councillors way back in 2010 but it is another thing altogether to allow it to go on for 9 years. As I have said it should go on for the shortest possible time. The Creech report actually said that “the explicit intent is for the Commissioners to withdraw and to be replaced by elected representatives as soon as their task is achieved and the present systemic issues are resolved.”—as soon as their task is achieved. That task the Canterbury Water Management Strategy shows that it has been achieved. Therefore it is time for us to say to those commissioners: “Your job is done and by the way well done but thanks and goodbye.” It is time for that.And lastly the bill is seriously flawed in one other way. The legislation will be repealed under clause 6 after the 2019 local government elections and by then Environment Canterbury will under that clause have to have decided what wards it will have how many councillors per ward it will have and so on for that election to take place. But clause 29(2) says “Environment Canterbury must review” and that means all of the members of Environment Canterbury including the appointed members. The reason for the appointment of the commissioners was to look exclusively at water issues not to decide what the future Environment Canterbury should be—not their job at all—and yet this bill makes it just as much their responsibility as it is of those who will be elected. That is totally inappropriate and it is not going to serve the interests of the people of Christchurch and Canterbury to have appointed people deciding what their regional council will look like after 2019.It is a serious flaw in the bill. I have mentioned it in previous speeches and the Government has done nothing about it. The Government is simply cloth-eared about all the serious flaws in the bill and just wants this legislation passed irrespective of what the people of Canterbury say because as Ruth Dyson said they have virtually all submitted that they do not want this bill.The people of Canterbury want their full democracy back including those who actually supported the appointment of the commissioners in the first place because they know their job has been done. They know it is time for them to go. They think they did a good job but they want their democracy back and that is what should be happening now not this idiotic bill which will achieve absolutely nothing and which will compromise democracy in Canterbury for another 3 years. It is a bad bill and it should not be passed.