Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill

I move, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

Tuatahi, me mihi au ki ōku rangatira, ngā tini whanaunga o Ngāi Tahu whānui, Te Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha, nau mai whakatau mai, nau mai whakatau mai ki Te Whare Paremata e takatū nei. Tēnā koutou i tēnei kaupapa whakahirahira. E tū ana au ki te tautoko i te hautū tēnei pire, Te Pire Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha, ngā māngai o Ngāi Tahu.

[Firstly, I should acknowledge my leaders, the many relations from the wider Ngāi Tahu tribe, and Environment Canterbury; welcome, welcome to Parliament House, which stands here. Greetings on this important matter. I stand to support the passing of this bill, the Environment Canterbury legislation, and the spokespeople of Ngāi Tahu.]

It’s an honour and a privilege to introduce the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. As the House will be aware, local bills enable local authorities to promote legislative change at a local level. This bill would have the effect of continuing permanently the mana whenua representation on the Canterbury Regional Council in the form of two Ngāi Tahu councillors from the 2019 local body elections, an existing arrangement first put in place by the National Government in 2010, when it installed commissioners on the Canterbury Regional Council. The introduction of Ngāi Tahu councillors has proved truly insightful, and I commend the National Party for its foresight in doing so.

This House will recall it was also the National Government who determined that post-quake Canterbury needed a strong presence in determining its own future, leading to the establishment of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). And, while not without its critics, National further endorsed that approach post-CERA, establishing Ōtākaro Ltd and Regenerate Christchurch, two Christchurch-based organisations which continue to progress post-quake recovery initiatives and ensure enhanced local engagement in local issues—a concept also at the heart of this bill.

I commend too Environment Canterbury’s councillors for recognising that value and seeking the continuation of a mana whenua voice in decision making. This local bill, as local bills are, is very much a local solution for local issues and would simply continue what is well-established and working exceptionally well. Continuing Ngāi Tahu representation on the council is key in ensuring the values and concerns of mana whenua are given full expression in all aspects of the council’s decision making. A significant amount has been achieved with a mana whenua voice in Environment Canterbury’s decision making, from which the region has benefited, along with its ratepayers; hence the wish for it to continue. Indeed, it is the expiry of that National Government legislation, the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016, and the upcoming local body election in 2019 that has led to the promotion of this bill.

Environment Canterbury as the Canterbury Regional Council is responsible for not only environmental outcomes but also social, economic, and cultural outcomes in a 45,000 square kilometre area of the South Island. It is an area that includes many of New Zealand’s iconic landscapes and majestic vistas, from north of Kaikōura to Waitaki in the south and inland as far as the Southern Alps, including the spectacular braided rivers and the mighty maunga Aoraki / Mount Cook. Ngāi Tahu, of course, are the original people and kaitiaki of much of that area, having had an intimate connection with it since the ancient migrations of Waitaha, Ngāti Māmoe, and Ngāi Tahu. Generations later, the sense of kaitiaki responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has for the natural environment has not diminished. To the contrary, it remains vital and strong, and increasingly relevant.

In the 20 years since the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, particularly since the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, and again following the Kaikōura earthquake of 2016, Ngāi Tahu has been increasingly recognised as a key partner in the Canterbury region. Many entities in the south, as Environment Canterbury clearly has, now recognise the value of strategic partnership with and Ngāi Tahu representation at a governance level as well as a cultural narrative which remains very relevant today. Ngāi Tahu again demonstrated the value of partnership, particularly in time of need, in its compassionate and responsive leadership again in Christchurch in the last few weeks.

This local bill is therefore supported by the mayoral forum of all 10 territorial local authorities and all 10 Papatipu Rūnanga in the Canterbury Regional Council area. The council has recently undertaken a representation review which indicated the council’s preference that two mana whenua seats should remain. Ten submitters addressed the subject. The council’s intention was also referred to in long-term plan consultation documents, with three submitters commenting on the proposal. Consultation on the bill itself will, of course, be possible at the select committee stage.

Opposition to this bill will likely include the apparent concern that it’s not acceptable to give Ngāi Tahu special treatment and that the pendulum has swung too far. Let me say to those people: this bill is not about special treatment. This bill is about enhanced representation in an age where a mana whenua voice is critical, which Ngāi Tahu councillors have demonstrated in the value they have added to a range of Environment Canterbury’s work over the last eight years. This bill is simply about effective regional governance continuing in a manner that has already proven to be effective.

To those who say that this bill will adversely impact on representation and democracy, I say this: this bill will ensure that more, not fewer, voices will be heard at the council table and, because of that, provide an enhanced additional level of representation informed by generations of knowledge and environmental awareness. It may be that those people don’t appreciate, have forgotten, or for whatever reason willingly ignore that the mana whenua world view is one of fostering and sustaining the natural environment for the benefit of all peoples. There can only be advantage and value from such inclusiveness and mutual understanding that is a fundamental element of this bill. It should not be seen as special treatment. It should remind us that what is good for mana whenua is good for all of us. There is nothing to be scared of here.

In recent weeks, the nation’s response to the tragic events in Christchurch has demonstrated globally the power of inclusiveness and the value of other cultures’ beliefs and different ways of thinking, and our collective willingness to accept them. It is what we wish to become known for, and we have been widely praised for it. The passage of this bill will undoubtedly add to the conversation of what inclusiveness really means. This bill is an opportunity to stand with the mana whenua and accept and utilise their values, spiritual beliefs, and knowledge gained over generations for the good of all. Given recent events in Christchurch and the sense of inclusiveness that has arisen from it, it would be an unforgivable double standard not to trust and embrace the mana whenua.

This nation, the nation of all of us, has come a long way, but our journey, of which this bill is now part, is far from complete. In Aotearoa New Zealand, in the modern progressive nation we wish to be, a Te Ao Māori world view is an essential part of decision making. Ngāi Tahu representation on the regional council ensures a position of influence for mana whenua values, and it creates a governance structure that reflects the spirit and commitment to work together in true collaborative partnerships between mana whenua and the regional council and in the work it does. That collaborative partnership includes the sharing of knowledge and information, the creation of opportunities for increased participation in decision-making processes, effective engagement, and further enhancement of existing working relationships. It is what the Labour-led Government had in mind when it sought to enhance Crown-Māori relationships.

In the nearly nine years since they were first introduced by the National Government, Ngāi Tahu councillors have played a pivotal role in building the social capital and community ownership of solutions that underpin water and land management in Canterbury. The practical benefits are not least the greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, reduced costs for both council and consent applicants, and the council’s role in earthquake recovery. Such representation has contributed immeasurably to good outcomes in the region for the council, for its ratepayers, and even for those visiting the region. From a council perspective, Environment Canterbury very clearly understands that continued mana whenua representation at a governance level is the most effective way to give effect to key statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government Act 2002, and also as fellow New Zealanders wishing to contribute to a better and more inclusive New Zealand, both for us and our children after us.

Ngāi Tahu councillors have also provided confidence to Papatipu Rūnanga and wider tribal members that their voices, their environmental and other concerns, are heard at the highest level. This bill will ensure that the values and intergenerational perspective are consistently heard at the council table and confer more representative and more effective local authority than without mana whenua representation. As we have already seen, there will be more balanced views on a range of issues, more partnered decision-making, and better outcomes for ratepayers and those who use our natural environment.

In short, we know that what is in place now and has been for years, and what this local bill would continue, works. It should continue. In the words of Dame Margaret Bazley, a previous chair of the Environment Canterbury commissioners, “having Ngāi Tahu at the council decision-making table is simply just the right thing to do”. As the local member for Te Tai Tonga and therefore the Canterbury region, I support this modest request and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill at its first reading. Can I acknowledge and congratulate the member in charge of the bill for bringing this to the House.

The bill—I guess the member has previously outlined it, but I will again. So under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016, the regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), has included two members who were appointed by Ministers on the recommendation of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu—and I acknowledge Ngāi Tahu representatives in the gallery today. That arrangement was very successful.

From my vantage point as a local Canterbury MP—South Canterbury, North Otago, and Central Otago, but Canterbury MP for the purposes of this bill—the complaints around the performance of Environment Canterbury, particularly with challenges in the Environment Court, dwindled away to virtually nothing. I can credit that with, first of all, the brave decision by the Hon Dr Nick Smith at the time to call in the ECan members and appoint commissioners. If I may very briefly just remind, perhaps, the House of the history of what has brought us to this today—that was the non-performance of ECan and its elected members in bringing a viable operative water plan, and that was in an environment of a rapidly over-allocated catchment condition and a subsequent, perhaps, degradation—or threat of degradation—of water quality. It’s sad to say the ECan elected members of the day had not grappled with that very serious responsibility that they had been elected to deal with. So the Hon Dr Nick Smith called them in and appointed commissioners.

So it was with the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016, which was subsequently brought in, that included those two members of Ngāi Tahu, which has proven to be very successful and very well-favoured by the other commissioners in ECan, and, as I have said, from my point of view as a local representative, has overseen a dwindling—a very strong dwindling—of complaints, particularly to the Environment Court but also those complaints that come into my office from constituents who find themselves butting against. So I congratulate the commissioners and all of those representatives, including the Ngāi Tahu representatives around the table, who brought about that change in culture and that change in performance.

However, National will not support this bill at its first reading, and I will outline to the House why National cannot and will not support this bill. I want to take nothing away from the performance of Ngāi Tahu, and I want to take nothing away from the performance of ECan under the current arrangements, but now is the time to move on and to move to a fully elected regime which we had before. I’m also reminded, looking back in history, about how some of the then Opposition members in the House—the Green Party, New Zealand First, and the Labour Party—railed against appointed members on ECan and railed against the so-called loss of democracy in ECan—

💬 Sarah Dowie: Oh, how times have changed.

—time after time after time. As my colleague has just noticed, oh, how times have changed.

But we believe that times have changed. ECan is now on a solid footing, ECan now has a good culture, and ECan should now be in the same position as every other regional council in New Zealand, where free and hotly contested elections are held this triennium. And if this Government is true to its principles, so strongly put in the years when they were in Opposition and the two ECan bills and legislation were going through the House, they too will support a return to full democracy, because, if they don’t, then what were those principles back in the day when they were opposing the measures brought into this House by the Hon Dr Nick Smith that brought about the sea change in the performance and culture of Environment Canterbury? So I challenge—I challenge—the Labour Party and New Zealand First and the Green Party, who now have the numbers in this House, to be consistent with their—

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Ha, ha!

—values of bringing ECan back to full democracy. Ruth Dyson laughs; it is not funny—it is not funny. Full democracy they demanded—full democracy—and full democracy is what they can get. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Tēnā koe, tēnei ka tū ake ki te tautoko i ngā mihi ki a koutou kua tae mai nei ki te whakarongo ki tēnei o ngā whitiwhiti kōrero, ngā taupatupatu, Ngāi Tahu, ka nui te mihi atu.

[Thank you, I stand to support the greetings to you who have come here to listen to this discussion, this debate; Ngāi Tahu, many greetings to you.]

I stand in support of the intent of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill sponsored by the local member, my colleague Rino Tirikatene, to seek the support of Ngāi Tahu representation on the Canterbury Regional Council. Interesting were the comments made by the previous speaker, Jacqui Dean, but not surprising.

I too want to go over a bit of history. Around about 1996, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, prior to their settlement, sought the recognition of their governance structure; and within that governance structure, moving from a trust board into preparation for the settlement at the time, mandating Papatipu Rūnanga was a way of formalising the way in which Ngāi Tahu saw itself moving forward into the future, prior to going down the settlement pathway. The reason why I cite that is because, when we consider the maturity with which—over a long period of time; since 1996 until this time—Ngāi Tahu have manifested their aspirations of kaitiakitanga, we have seen across both the region, and certainly within the Canterbury area, a sophisticated tribal governance system that is able to articulate itself and make contributions in ways that have been to the benefit not only of the people of Ngāi Tahu but certainly of the region of Ngāi Tahu.

We have heard, through the recent experience of Environment Canterbury (ECan)—and, actually, now their advocacy for Ngāi Tahu representation on their regional council—all the benefits that have emanated from that type of advocacy and, more importantly, that relationship, and the ability of Ngāi Tahu themselves to exercise high-level principles about good stewardship for the region, for the benefit of all New Zealanders—of all New Zealanders. So the things that we see happening down in Canterbury have been because of a level of maturity that has gotten people over some very superficial arguments that will emerge in this House today on this bill.

I remember a time when our previous colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui brought into the House a local bill for representation on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. That was a vociferous debate and it was toxic. But I can say now, in retrospect, that the Bay are actually in the same position of saying, with the representation of iwi in their area—and there are far more iwi there to have to try and navigate through than in Ngāi Tahu—it is still a good thing.

But here’s the thing: the Resource Management Act—and the Hon Nick Smith knows this—at its heart, in terms of principles for Māori, has kaitiakitanga right in there. If you’re going to have an approach where iwi representation could be mandated with the level of impact that we could see for the benefit of the environment, it would be in the Canterbury area for a whole range of reasons. I can’t see why the Opposition are not willing to support something that, in my mind certainly, and certainly in the sponsoring member’s mind, is an idea whose time has come.

When I first came into this role as Minister of Local Government, I was heartened by the early meetings that I had with the regional council, about all the examples of where the contribution of Ngāi Tahu within the ECan decision-making was seen to be a huge positive contribution into the way that they were approaching things, right from the chairperson to members on the council, and, in fact, the Ngāi Tahu members themselves who are participating. They’ve remained quite humble on this front, because I think, notwithstanding the outcome on this bill, they are an enduring contribution to the way in which environmental issues in the Canterbury area will either progress or not.

But here’s, again, a point to be made: when you have iwi sitting at the table, and the opportunity is here now, then at the front end you’re including iwi in a decision-making process that doesn’t get frittered away from the priorities of environmental outcomes. In fact, you’re going to get a consolidation of effort towards long-term sustainability objectives that are at the heart of the decision-making process for regional councils.

I’m somewhat disappointed by the views coming across from the Opposition; not surprised. But this is certainly an idea whose time has come.

This bill is a radical change to the way in which our local government sector has been organised for more than 150 years. The basic principle of the election of our local councils, whether they be regional or local, is that they are elected by the general public. The deep irony from the Minister who’s just introduced this bill is the history of Environment Canterbury, which I want to come to in a moment, and the views that Labour, New Zealand First, and the Greens took at that time.

The first important question I want to put to the Minister of Local Government is this: if direct appointments on to the Canterbury Regional Council are so strongly imported by Nanaia Mahuta, is it Government policy that it will be provided or made available to other councils? I asked the Minister—I’ll ask her again—is it now Government policy that direct iwi representation being appointed to councils will be supported by Government?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: This is a local bill.

No, I’m asking the member a question. It’s actually an important question, because the lack of answer to that question really does expose the ad hoc nature of this bill.

I’ve gone back to the Hansard from the time our previous Government decided to intervene in Environment Canterbury. It was a time when all 10 mayors in the Canterbury region made submissions to our Government that the issues in Environment Canterbury were so serious that they required our intervention. What is so interesting reading this Hansard is the level of opprobrium, the criticism, the passion that was expressed by Labour members, and can I quote directly what Labour said at the time: “Anything less than 100 percent elected members is unsatisfactory to the Labour Party.”

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: And what happened? You sacked them all.

Well, my question is this: if the Labour Party had said at that time, “Hey, look, we support this bill and having temporary Ngāi Tahu appointments to help Ngāi Tahu through that transition.”, then we might today find their position believable and consistent. But the truth is: do you know how far it went? Labour members accused me of behaving like the likes of Nazi Germany—Nazi Germany—when we made that intervention in the Canterbury Regional Council. That’s what members like Megan Woods and others said of me. How dare they now come into the Parliament and pretend that somehow it’s just a minor tinker, a local bill in which they now want to change the way in which the governance of Environment Canterbury operates, and not on a temporary basis, of which our intervention was in Environment Canterbury, but for ever more. It’s very telling that the Minister of Local Government will not be straight with New Zealanders and say whether this is going to apply more generally to councils across New Zealand.

It’s even more significant in terms of New Zealand First. They railed, up and down New Zealand, against our Government providing even a voice for iwi—to say that if you were managing a river, you had to talk with your local iwi. New Zealand First pledged to repeal those provisions. It is New Zealand First policy that they will vigorously oppose any Māori representation on local councils, yet today they are going to vote for this bill—a flip-flop on a grand scale. The existing Local Electoral Act does provide a process by which there can be Māori wards. Members opposite need to answer why they would not use that mechanism that exists already in the law and provide the opportunity for those persons to be elected rather than appointed. I stress again: this is a fundamental change—

Thank you, Dr Smith. Your time has expired.

Kia ora anō tātau. New Zealand First will not support the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. That should not, however, be seen as a negative reflection on a dear colleague, the sitting member for the southern Māori seat, Te Wai Pounamu, widely respected by the members of our caucus, and indeed the grandson of the first of the Tirikatenes to come into this House in the days before the Rātana members from the other four quarters made an appearance. Neither is it to cast any negative reflection upon the fantastic economic achievements and cultural revival achievements of the Ngāi Tahu in the South Island or, indeed, wherever they find their members. This is a matter of principle that the caucus is unwilling to move away from.

The principle is quite simple: of all the Māori tribes in Aotearoa, without a doubt the most powerful of those tribes is the Ngāi Tahu tribe. They had the foresight, firstly, to pass the Ngāi Tahu bill, which was opposed by one of their own members, Sandra Lee. It was also opposed by the New Zealand Māori Council, and in those deliberations that council was represented by Maanu Paul. The gestation and the emergence of that bill was a hard-fought struggle as they moved on from the previous Ngaitahu Maori Trust Board, created, I should imagine, or administered, under the 1955 Act. So we are talking about the most well-endowed, most powerful of all the Māori tribes of Te Ao Māori. We salute them and continue to acknowledge the very deep economic furrow they are planting and the seeds that are growing and generating economic upside for the members of their tribe, but they do not need a culturally paved avenue into this statutory body. They have the power and they have the historical and mana whenua associations within their own territory to well and truly stand up for themselves.

The application of the law is not colour-blind. The application of the law is exercised via the provisions in the various statutes that this regional council will be responsible for delivering upon, and at the end of the day the governance oversight for those provisions down in the actual bureaucracy will be by those folk who have been elected via a universal franchise. That is the position that our caucus cleaves to, and it will not be dissuaded from that course of action on this particular bill. Matters pertaining to the future of the Māori seats—those issues are yet to come before the Parliament.

Now, I want to comment a little on one of the areas that we see as a conundrum in this bill. We most certainly acknowledge that there is one tribe into Te Wai Pounamu, with the exception of the people at the prow of Māui’s waka, in Te Tau Ihu, around the Golden Bay - Nelson - Blenheim area. Those are the small tribes of Tainui and Kurahaupō waka—eight of them—but what we’re more concerned about is that it’s not feasible, we don’t think it is defensible, for a group that has inordinately large resources of an economic character, that the ability to develop those resources will depend on the nature and the quality of statutory environmental resource management decisions. Those decisions must be separate from the people of the Ngāi Tahu. This is the position of our caucus. That’s not to say an individual Kai Tahu person should not one day want to go on that council, but in terms of being appointed to the council through the tribal route, up to a Minister, and the Minister accepting the nomination after whatever processes the bureaucracy might be required to attend to—we cannot and we do not agree with that.

So, obviously, it is important that the people of this part of Aotearoa restore to themselves the ability to manage their affairs through universal franchise. Today, despite the disappointment that might be felt on the marae in the Ngāi Tahu, we will not support this bill.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. National has a long-term position that there’s not a place for Government or Parliament to impose separate Māori representation in local government. These local government bodies or entities have the ability themselves to seek this representation through a process that includes proper consultation with their communities. We would advocate, suggest very strongly, that if Environment Canterbury (ECan) is supportive of such representation, it undertakes that legal process that already exists instead of seeking a separate and new piece of legislation from Parliament to somehow get around the consultation or other provisions that exist under current, existing legislation.

It is also our view—certainly, my personal view—that Ngāi Tahu is an incredibly strong and capable collection of people. They are able to stand very credible, very capable individuals in upcoming local body elections, including on ECan. I would suggest with their standing in their communities they would have every opportunity to be elected to that regional council, and they also do have the avenue of using existing legislative processes to establish Māori representation within ECan in a manner that does not require legislation such as this.

The nature of this legislation is something we cannot and will not support.

I rise to strongly support the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill—absolutely—and we would call on other parties to do the same. It is an essential step forward in ensuring tangata whenua representation in local government and giving mana whenua a voice on issues that affect them in their own rohe. I do, therefore, want to mention that while the bill itself is explicit about Ngāi Tahu representation, my understanding is that there is also work that happens alongside other iwi who reside on Ngāi Tahu whenua and that there is an agreement and openness to be able to work with Ngāi Tahu from other Māori representation to also be able to represent and present a cohesive Māori voice on that council. So the Green Party does not have concerns around ensuring that there is also wider Māori representation through having a Ngāi Tahu voice.

I wanted specifically, in my short time, to look at the example of why Māori representation is absolutely to the benefit of everyone. My colleague, my tuakana Minister Nanaia Mahuta, also referred to this. I have my own examples. For example, currently around the country—and particularly in Hokianga, where I’m from—people are railing to try and improve waste-water and sewerage systems, often alongside Pākehā flax-roots communities, and fighting to uphold their responsibilities as caregivers of these living systems. This is also why this is in standing with the Green Party view that this is beneficial to ensure and guarantee mana whenua representation.

Hapū and iwi are concerned with the long-term well-being of rivers, lakes, and harbours, and that accountability is not just to those waters but to whānau, because it requires hapū to protect that resource as a taonga, a source of kai, and a spiritual nourishment. Often these decisions made—certainly, at local and regional authorities—have been of a cost-cutting, short-term nature, alongside a reluctance to share power with iwi and with mana whenua. This is a refusal to acknowledge the expertise that has been built up over centuries, honed and refined over generations, and has been held by local Māori over hundreds of years that is core to the particular living systems in their rohe.

There have been economic waste-water decisions—as one small example—that have ended up being quite costly and that have continued to ruin the ecosystem of that rohe, as well as exploding wider costs. So having proper Māori representation at local and regional authorities, in particular, who hold those levers to think about the plans for our infrastructure to care for our natural resources—if we had done that, say, 30 years ago, even for my iwi in Hokianga, we may well have seen better decisions about water infrastructure and would certainly have saved some money. There has been expensive litigation, in fact, from some of those decisions that has led to both a denigration of the voice of mana whenua and a degradation of the environment. So I really wanted to take the time to give a clear outline, an example, of why the Greens have always stood for ensuring and guaranteeing mana whenua representation at the regional authority level.

I wanted to pick up some of the debate from the Opposition. The other side of the House have said that the way we, including the Greens—and, yes, we railed against the anti-democratic decisions that were made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. This decision to guarantee Māori representation is part of improving the democracy of those decisions. Rather than a trade-off, this is exactly how we can improve the democracy of those anti-democratic decisions that were made.

Of course we understand that while Ngāi Tahu is at the core of that whenua and while we are still minorities, it is not guaranteed that there will be mana whenua representation. So I don’t at all buy the rather patronising argument that “Oh, they’re all right, they’re pretty good—they can do it themselves.” This is not about that. It’s about ensuring and guaranteeing that there is mana whenua representation and that mana whenua are able to make those democratic decisions for who will stand and be their voice.

I strongly support this bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

I think before we even start, there’s a big question that needs to be asked about why this bill has come to the House in this form. We were told earlier this year that bills that come as private bills cannot change primary legislation and, therefore, I can tell you, Madam Assistant Speaker, there was a bill introduced by one of our members that was knocked out by the Clerk’s Office for that very reason. So I am very interested as to why this bill, particularly, has been allowed to progress like this. Why has this bill come as a private bill when the Government should have moved the bill themselves? Why would you have seven Māori seats in your caucus, and still rely on a private bill process to get something through?

💬 Hon Members: It’s a local bill.

Local bill, but, none the less, this local bill changes primary legislation. This is completely, in my opinion, an abuse of parliamentary process, and those who have promoted it should have found that out. I’ve told that particular position to Mr Tirikatene, and to any others who bothered to ask for an opinion from me on this bill.

I don’t have any objection to the way in which an Electoral Act—a primary Electoral Act—determines who should sit where on any particular local body, or, for that matter, in this House. But I do have an objection to this House being used through this process to create an arrangement where, in fact, many of the people who are living in the Ngāi Tahu rohe are disenfranchised, because one of the reasons for asking for this was because, apparently, no vote could be accurately conducted by Ngāi Tahu to find out who their representatives were to be. That’s a minor issue. The big issue is whether or not we should be changing electoral law in New Zealand through a bill like this, and my strong view is that we should not.

I think—I would like to make it very clear—that when we were in a position of having to disband Environment Canterbury (ECan), as it then was, and make appointments to commissioner positions, it was totally appropriate that the widest number of people in the community in Canterbury were represented in the appointments that were made. But the idea of an appointment process trumping an elected process is the wrong one.

Now, I’m sorry to say this, but Ngāi Tahu is a very big, well-organised grouping—a very important grouping, one that is essential to the long-term success of the South Island, and I appreciate that very, very much—but a grouping like that should be able to command enough electoral support to be able to achieve what’s being sought today, without reference to preferential legislation. And I think the arguments that were just put in front of us by Marama Davidson tend to deny that Ngāi Tahu themselves are very, very big players in the resource area, and very reliant, in many cases, on resource consents. To have the idea, as was advanced by Marama Davidson, that this could, in fact, save us a lot of money because there’d be no objections from that group to a whole lot of resource consent applications is actually a huge disrespect to the organisation, in the first place.

So I don’t need to take a lot of time. I just simply say that I think the way in which ECan itself has approached this bill has been totally inappropriate. The advice they’ve been given by various people that has allowed it to get to this House has been selective and quite unreasonable. And the fact is that if there is going to be a change in legislation that is of a primary nature, then it should not be done through a local bill process. That has been the ruling from the Clerk’s Office on at least one other occasion this year, so I’d like to see a degree of consistency in that regard. And for that reason, more than any other, I can’t support this bill and nor will the National Party.

Rangatira mā, tēnei te mihi i runga i te kaupapa o te rā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Chiefs and others, I greet you with regard to today’s matter. Greetings, greetings, greetings to all.]

It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. I want to acknowledge the sponsor of this local bill, my friend and colleague Rino Tirikatene, MP for Te Tai Tonga, and I acknowledge him for his work. It has been a longer process than was necessary, and we’re about to see an outcome that he doesn’t deserve to have, actually, on the vote of his bill. It should have been at least supported to a select committee and, in my view, supported all the way through.

I want to acknowledge our regional council, Environment Canterbury (ECan), the staff, the elected representatives, and the appointed representatives, actually, because together they have worked incredibly constructively and gone well beyond the requirements for a local bill. They have engaged, they have listened, they’ve considered, they’ve gone back to people, and they’ve given us a bill that they should be proud of, and I am really proud of the process that they undertook to get to this point.

I also want to acknowledge Kāi Tahu. It’s our tribal authority; it’s our mana whenua. It’s unlike most iwi in regional councils, because we just have one, and that’s behind the heart of this thinking. It’s different than every other regional council. Brett Hudson was incorrect about having other avenues, because having constituency representatives does not guarantee mana whenua representation, which is the whole point of this bill. That’s what it’s seeking, and this is the only way it can be delivered.

Nick Smith is wrong, but he is consistent. He’s pretty well always wrong. All wards will have elected representation at the 2019 local body election. At last we have our democracy back. These representatives are in addition to the constituency representation, and I thought even the Hon Nick Smith would understand that, but clearly he doesn’t. So this is in addition to the elected constituency representatives that we will vote for later this year.

Last Friday, after the national memorial service in Christchurch, a group from Christchurch, from every rūnaka and from ECan, met. So the Te Rōpū Tuia hui was held to discuss this bill, and they had a proposal that they would ask Rino Tirikatene to progress it today. There’s a wide range of political views around that ECan table. I’m sorry to say, but I have a suspicion that some of the representatives are card-carrying members of the National Party. While that might not be true—and I don’t want to defame them, but that’s what they’ve told me—every single person at that hui, every single person, agreed to the proposal. They wanted this bill to pass—and it was across-the-board political representation—because they know the difference that Kāi Tahu representation around the table has made in the understanding across the board of staff, of councillors, and of process, of the consideration of issues, and of a better outcome. How could anyone in this House not want better understanding, a better process, and a better outcome—less litigation, less tension, and a higher quality of outcome on water issues, on air-quality issues, and on public transport issues, which they have yet to get right, but the process has been better than it would have otherwise.

We have had improved regional council decision-making as a result of that representation. When Nick Smith started this process, I would not have thought that would have been the outcome, and I am pleased to say it has been. At least something good came out of the nonsense that Nick Smith instigated so many years ago. And we should preserve the one thing that has clearly been good for our region. That is why I support this legislation. I’m very proud of Rino Tirikatene for—

Order! [Interruption] Order! I apologise. Your time has expired. Kia ora.

I just visited the website of Environment Canterbury, for this particular bill, and I saw some comments about the commissioners appointed by the Government. It has this comment: “The Government selected experienced and capable commissioners with excellent service, governance, judicial, and business skills. This model has ensured a balance of agricultural, environmental, and electricity expertise to match the challenges facing Environment Canterbury.” So this is a comment for the commissioners appointed by the Government. But remember, just a few years ago, how Labour railed against the National Government for making such appointments. They railed against this, calling this a lost democracy. But today they are trying to do what they used to be against.

This bill itself is trying to empower Ngāi Tahu to appoint up to two members to Environment Canterbury after the 2019 local elections. Ngāi Tahu is a very influential Māori iwi. As a matter of fact, if you ask me, “What Māori iwi have you heard about?”, I would say maybe Ngāi Tahu, because really that’s the name I have heard time and time again. It’s very well organised, very well respected, very influential and they worked with Government very productively through the Canterbury earthquakes. So there is no problem with Ngāi Tahu. We respect that. But the problem with this bill is—as the previous speakers just mentioned, like the Hon Gerry Brownlee—that this bill is trying to make revisions or challenge a very important Act, the Electoral Act. That is a major change, if this bill passed. This is a local bill, and it is not appropriate for a local bill to do this job. It should be a Government bill. Ngāi Tahu should be confident that they would be able to back strong candidates to win local election seats. So there is a good chance for them to win, because they are so well respected, well supported. They should go through that process.

Alternatively, they could communicate or consult with communities and see whether there is a possibility to establish a Māori ward, and they can do this under the current Electoral Act, basically. So they could do this. They have channels. They have the proper channels to do this. So this bill, we believe, will not really serve the purpose of democracy. We believe we should go through the proper process, and therefore we oppose the bill. Thanks.

Rino Tirikatene—five minutes in reply.

Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Well, I’m very disappointed that the House has—well, in the National Party and their decision today.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about New Zealand First?

And New Zealand First as well. I’m disappointed. This is a disappointing day for our country, I believe, because this wasn’t a political bill.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Blame your coalition, mate.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Do not bring me into this debate, Dr Smith. Carry on.

This wasn’t a political bill. This was a local bill, and the National Party has decided to play politics with this bill. That’s very disappointing. The irony is that they’re railing now against Ngāi Tahu appointments and voting down this bill, and yet they were the ones that installed Ngāi Tahu councillors in the first place. Talk about confusion. They are absolutely confused. They appointed Ngāi Tahu commissioners and now they’ve tried to come up with every excuse under the sun to cancel their own decision. What Opposition party rails against what they did in Government? It’s absolutely bizarre, but it just goes to show how confused the National Party is under this current leadership. It’s really staggering and it’s very sad.

Environment Canterbury has laid out their case, with the support of Ngāi Tahu, on this. Yes, it arose out of very controversial circumstances but it is an arrangement that has worked—it’s worked, it’s been very successful, and it’s widely supported by the people of Canterbury and from all of the territorial authorities, as I’ve mentioned, right throughout papatipu rūnanga that are so intimately involved. This has been a wonderful relationship. The bonds that have been formed have now just been absolutely dashed by politics being played—politics being played.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s right—by Labour.

We aren’t playing the politics.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: You bet you are. Why did you not support commissioners from Ngāi Tahu when they were appointed?

Mr Smith, if you check the Hansard, we never opposed Ngāi Tahu representation. We supported Ngāi Tahu representation, and I proudly—[Interruption]—you can look at the Hansard for me. I looked ahead to this very moment—I looked ahead to this very moment and said we need to continue. It’s great that we have Ngāi Tahu commissioners, and I look forward to the point in time where we come at the expiry of the legislation, where we can—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not what the Hansard says.

It does. Check my speech out. Please do that.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Table it.

I will table that speech.

But this is just very disappointing. It’s a disappointing day for our country. We talk about tātou tātou e. We talk about the beautiful inclusiveness and all those lovely power Māori words of aroha, kotahitanga, but really, when it comes down to it—when it comes down to mana whenua trying to assert themselves—they won’t let us go there. They won’t let us go there.

Our country is founded on binary roots of the Treaty, mana whenua, iwi, and the Crown, and—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Why is there no Government bill?

—the National Party can’t help but try and hack away at our roots. But, I tell you, our roots run deep, Mr Brownlee—our roots run deep. So we may not succeed this time around, but I can tell you: Ngāi Tahu aren’t going away—Ngāi Tahu isn’t going away.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Bring it back as a Government bill

Who knows what will happen in the future, Mr Brownlee, but we want to work this to its conclusion, and it’s very disappointing, as I’ve said.

Just to conclude, I want to acknowledge the manuhiri that have travelled all this way: Environment Canterbury, Steve Lowndes and all the wonderful team there, and all the work that they’ve put into this bill. My whanaungas from Ngāi Tahu, all our papatipu rūnanga: Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke, Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua, Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Te Rūnanga o Moeraki, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tūāhuriri, Te Rūnanga o Ōnuku, Te Rūnanga o Waihao, Te Rūnanga o Wairewa, and Te Taumutu Rūnanga. They were here. They’ve witnessed what has taken place this afternoon. We won’t forget—we won’t forget. But as we say in Māori, me pēnei te kōrero, ko Aoraki te maunga, ehara i te maunga nekeneke, engari ko Aoraki te maunga, tū te ao, tū te pō.

[As we say in Māori, Aoraki is the ancestral mountain; it is not a mountain that moves. Aoraki is the ancestral mountain; it stands through light and dark.]

Aoraki is the mountain that does not move. Aoraki stands night and day, and we will be here, and we will continue the fight for mana whenua representation. I am very disappointed, but I am proud to have stood up for my people to support this bill. Kia ora tātou.