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 Māori Affairs Committee to consider the bill.

Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Aoraki maunga te paparahi o Te Wai Pounamu, ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, Ngāi Tahu whānui, aku tini whanaunga, tēnā koutou. Te Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha, nāu i kawe nei i tēnei pire ki te Whare nei, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[Greetings to you all in the House. To Aoraki, the foundation of the South Island, to the tribal authorities, to Ngāi Tahu in general and to my many relatives, greetings to you. To Environment Canterbury, who brought this bill to this House, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

I am delighted to speak as the support member for this bill, the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. This bill reinstates mana whenua representation on the Canterbury Regional Council in the form of two Ngāi Tahu councillors from the 2022 local body elections. I want to acknowledge the Canterbury Regional Council, also known as Environment Canterbury, for bringing this bill to the House in collaboration with the Papatipu Rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu, who I know are tuning in from HQ there in Ōtautahi, so I mihi to them all.

This arrangement of Ngāi Tahu councillors was first put in place by the National Government in 2010, when it installed commissioners on the council. The introduction of Ngāi Tahu councillors proved truly insightful, and I commend the National Party for its foresight in doing so. This House will recall a similar local bill that was introduced in April 2019, intended to continue the mana whenua representation on council prior to the 2019 local body elections, but unfortunately that was defeated at first reading.

Disappointed, but not discouraged, Environment Canterbury worked with the Papatipu Rūnanga to explore other opportunities, and that led to the appointment of mana whenua Tumu Taiao—mana whenua experts who were appointed in 2020 to advise councillors on the interests of mana whenua. However, the Tumu Taiao do not have the ability to vote at council meetings and, ultimately, legislative change is required to provide for the mana whenua voice at the council table. This bill reflects Environment Canterbury’s commitment to securing Ngāi Tahu representation. I commend Environment Canterbury’s councillors for recognising the value in mana whenua representation and acknowledge that this benefits all ratepayers, not just Ngāi Tahu.

There are two key differences between this local bill and that previously debated in the House, and these changes relate to Māori constituencies or wards and the issue of remuneration, which I’ll briefly address. This bill explicitly provides that Māori wards are not prohibited, meaning that the council may still choose to introduce those in the future. However, Māori wards are not considered to amount to mana whenua representation, hence the promotion of this bill, which is very much a local solution for local issues.

In terms of remuneration, this bill provides for the appointed Ngāi Tahu councillors to be remunerated—including allowances, expenses, and fees—separately from the pool allocated by the Remuneration Authority, but otherwise on the same basis, given that the appointment of Ngāi Tahu councillors will not reduce the workload of the existing elected councillors. As stated previously, this bill is a local solution for local issues and would simply reinstate what has previously worked exceptionally well. It is not a model that will work in all regions of Aotearoa New Zealand, but it reflects a tried and true arrangement in Canterbury that ensures the values and concerns of mana whenua are given full expression. Environment Canterbury is not urging this model be adopted by others, but it does ask this House that it be allowed to have a system that it believes is right for Canterbury.

Environment Canterbury 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. Ngāi Tahu is increasingly recognised as a strategic partner in the Canterbury region.

Indeed, I submit Ngāi Tahu should have a seat at the decision-making table. Opposition to this bill will likely include the apparent concerns that it’s not acceptable to give Ngāi Tahu special treatment—and let me say to those people that this bill is not about special treatment; this bill is about ensuring there is enhanced representation in an age where a mana whenua voice is critical, in which Ngāi Tahu councillors have previously demonstrated the value they have added to a range of Environment Canterbury’s work. To those who say this is a special privilege for Ngāi Tahu, I say: you’re looking through the wrong lens. This bill is about recognising the responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has as kaitiaki of the air, waters, land, and coast of the region and enabling them to perform that duty. That responsibility lies with Ngāi Tahu directly, not with Māori generally. To those who say 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, it provides an enhanced additional level of representation informed by generations of knowledge and environmental awareness. There can only be advantage and value from such inclusiveness and mutual understanding. That is a fundamental element of this bill.

This nation has come a long way, but our journey—of which this bill is now part—is far from complete. Aotearoa New Zealand and the modern progressive nation we wish to be—in our nation, a Te Ao Māori worldview is an essential part of decision making. Ngāi Tahu representation on the 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 and is a big step forward toward true collaborative partnership between mana whenua and the council in the work it does. 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. They provided confidence to Papatipu Rūnanga and wider tribal members that their voices, their environmental and societal vision and concerns, were heard at the highest level. The practical benefits were 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. This representation contributed immeasurably to good outcomes in the region for the council, for its ratepayers, and even those visiting the region.

From a council perspective, Environment Canterbury very clearly understands that mana whenua representation at a governance level is the most effective way to give effect to key statutory obligations under the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act, and also as fellow New Zealanders wishing to contribute to a better and more inclusive New Zealand. As the famous Ngāi Tahu saying is:

Mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei.

For us and our children after us.

This bill will ensure that the values and intergenerational perspective of Ngāi Tahu are consistently heard at the council table, creating a more representative and effective local authority. As the member for Te Tai Tonga, covering the vast expanse of the Canterbury region, and a proud whakapapa member of Ngāi Tahu myself, I support this modest request from the Canterbury Regional Council and I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party. It will be no surprise to this House that National will oppose this bill. We opposed it the last time this legislation came to the House.

Can I just acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene, a fantastic member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga. I just acknowledge Ngāi Tahu, a very powerful collective in Canterbury and Ōtautahi, and, as Mr Tirikatene mentioned, a strategic partner who we are very lucky to have, and a cornerstone of our history, a cornerstone of our present, and a cornerstone of our future ahead.

I’m going to outline some key points about why the National Party does disagree with this bill. The first thing I’d ask, probably procedurally, is why is it a local bill and why is this not a Government bill? I mean, the reason we are here again today with pretty much the same bill is that things have changed from the 52nd Parliament to now, the 53rd Parliament. Democracy has spoken and we are now in a one-party State, and the Labour Party are able to pass this bill without needing the support of any other parties. So that’s why it does come back in from the 52nd Parliament to the 53rd Parliament, and it’s very clear—it’s been introduced by a Labour member of Parliament—that it will pass its first reading today.

There was the proposition put forward: “Well, has National forgotten its history, because they appointed commissioners to ECan several years ago.” Well, that’s right. Environment Canterbury (ECan) was an appallingly performing regional council—probably the lowest ranked in league tables in New Zealand—and, quite rightly, the National Government of the day appointed all the commissioners. But I must remind the Labour Party that it was them who screamed black and blue that appointments were to be made, and they asked that democracy be restored.

What I would say in this bill is that if you do look at the wording—because we are parliamentarians and we need to scrutinise the words in this bill—what I disagree with in this bill is that in the commentary it says, “wishes to reinstate direct Ngāi Tahu representation at Council level.” I would argue there is representation at council level. Ngāi Tahu do have observers in the council who will be part of the conversations now and providing input and, no doubt, influencing decisions. The issue here of this bill is that what it changes is it gives those observers voting rights, and there’s something ironic there that we’re not asking the people who will have a vote to be selected through a voting process. So, on this side of the House, we do stand on the principle of democracy.

There is no reason why Ngāi Tahu representatives can’t be elected on to ECan, and as, actually, Mr Tirikatene pointed out—and I was actually going to point this out as well. It does astound me that in clause 11, it doesn’t prevent the council going through the process of setting up Māori wards. So we will end up in a position of having 14 elected councillors plus two appointed from Ngāi Tahu and, potentially, more from Māori wards. Why did it not exclude that in the law?

Here’s another point: why did it not reduce the number of elected councillors on ECan so that it was still capped at 14, reduce it to 12, and add the extra two appointees? There’s a lot that doesn’t actually add up here legislatively.

This is actually a radical change to local body electoral laws that have stood the test of time for 150 years. We do have also a quote in the commentary on the bill that says that if ECan does nothing, “it would deprive mana whenua of a voice at the Council table, and continue to deprive the Council of that direct input at the highest level.”, but I do come back to the point that we have representation at the moment. This bill is about the ability for those current representatives to actually cast a vote, so they do have representation at the moment.

This is supposed to be a local bill, and I’d ask some of the Labour members of Parliament who are potentially going to be seeking a call on this local bill from Canterbury: I would like you to talk about the public consultation that has gone on with this bill. Many of you will know that there are a lot of people in Canterbury that are concerned that there was no public consultation, so why was there no public consultation? Even ECan said—and I think it’s passing the buck a bit—“Oh well, there’ll be an ability to make a submission at the select committee hearing.” Well, that’s fine at a central government level, but where was the public consultation done at an ECan level?

It’s interesting in the wording, and sometimes wording says a lot where I think people don’t realise what they’re saying when they write things. It says in the commentary, “For that reason, the Council prefers direct appointment” as the option. Well, what does the public prefer? Well, we don’t know, because there was no public consultation.

So here we have a local bill that is not about representation. It’s about enacting voting rights, but it’s actually bypassing the democratic rule of being elected to come in to cast that vote on behalf of people, and then there was no consultation. I come back to my original point: why was it not introduced as a Government bill, and what precedent is this going to set? I think it’s actually a very confused precedent for the rest of the country, and it actually says that.

When I asked for and got some advice from the Clerk’s Office on why it was a local bill—because my belief was that you can’t amend primary legislation with a local bill—in fact, the answer was that the bill doesn’t amend the Local Government Act 2002. Instead, it creates a new stand-alone local Act that requires the Local Government Act to be applied in certain ways. So what we’re actually creating is a workaround, which I don’t believe is fundamentally good law.

Look, as I’ve said, this bill was clearly going to be passed at its first reading. It’s a bill that is back to the future, because it has been to the House before and it was defeated, and it poses a very good question: are we going to start appointing people at local body level that haven’t sought or gone through the electoral process—who haven’t been elected? Where is the view of the public and where is the mandate of the public in this bill?

This is concerning. This will change 150 years of electoral law. We’ll hear it today, won’t we? We’ll be told why and about the basic principle of election and democracy, and that is actually the fundamental point of what we are debating today. I don’t think anyone disagrees with representation of Ngāi Tahu on ECan, because they’re there now. What we’re talking about is: should those representatives have the ability for the right to vote? That poses the question of who, then, is appointing the representatives, and why shouldn’t people who haven’t been appointed by Ngāi Tahu have the ability to stand up and put their hand up in an election? Why can’t they do that?

These are the questions that I’m looking forward to hearing answers to from the contributions this afternoon, and I’m also looking forward to hearing from people who will make submissions through the select committee process. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

What a sad, sad contribution from that member, Matt Doocey, given the democracy that they talk about. The previous Prime Minister John Key would have supported this. Actually, no, no. After John Key was Bill English—he would have supported this. Chris Finlayson would have supported this. But sadly we’ve got this new National Party, who all of a sudden have forgotten their history, their background, and now are putting up idiotic questions about why would the Māoris who go to the council want to speak? Why do they want to speak? They could just sit there and observe things. Brilliant question! Wonderful question! Because Māori deserve an opportunity—

💬 Matt Doocey: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: It’s unusual to interrupt another member, but I will put the leave, and if the House agrees to it, then you can. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? No you can’t.

Kia ora. Thank you very much. It’s sad. The guilt is getting to the opposite side. See, this is a party who is fooling—along with this useless lot in ACT over here. This is what New Zealanders have to be aware of is what’s happening in the National Party with the Luxon takeover. The line is, “Oh, you know, we do support you Māoris, even though you’re separatists.” That’s the new line. “But ‘separatists’ is not racist”, but I looked up the definition of “separatist”, and I found South Africa and apartheid. And I think everybody knows that in South Africa that’s called racism, but not according to Mr Luxon and the new National Party. This all loving, caring week where Mr Luxon said he doesn’t support the Māori Health Authority, but that’s not being racist; that’s just being separatist. Someone explain to Mr Luxon what racism means. Certainly that previous member won’t be able to after that gobbledygook bloody speech. What a disgraceful speech.

Now what Ngāi Tahu—I’m a bit different to my cordial brother behind me, Rino Tirikatene. I want Ngāi Tahu to listen and hang their heads in shame when they hear this lot in National—when they hear this lot in National—because National supported Ngāi Tahu between 2016 and 2019, and it was well-supported by people like John Key and other members in the National Party. I’ll be very clear: this reinstatement in terms of rights is a reaffirmation of tino rangatiratanga in terms of Ngāi Tahu. What it does is it acknowledges Ngāi Tahu has mana over their lands and affirms their special association in terms of this particular kaupapa. They have this right, right across the Ngāi Tahu, don’t they, Rino, in terms of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the Department of Conservation, all recognise the special relationship that Ngāi Tahu have. So for the Opposition to raise separatism issues is disgraceful. What the National Party does not understand—

💬 Nicola Grigg: Ha, ha!

Don’t laugh, whoever you are. What the National Party doesn’t understand is that Māori have a special partnership. Māori are the Crown’s partner. You need to read that. And when you are the Crown’s partner, you get opportunities like this. And this is recognition from the Crown. The National Party used to do this; they used to remember this. Do you remember, who was your—it was Doug Graham. He came in. He’d be ashamed of this National Party lot now—wouldn’t have a clue. So as a Crown partner, you get an opportunity to exercise this, and this bill gives us an opportunity.

Can I say finally, in the last 30 or 40 seconds, that democracy is also about recognising indigenous people and an indigenous voice—something that the National Party lot and the right-wing fascists on the right here, the ACT Party, have forgotten and don’t understand, because you want to suppress, oppress, and depress Māori. Understand that if you invite Māori into the tent, that’s an integral part—

💬 Maureen Pugh: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

—of democracy. Get used to that—.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Point of order here, the Hon Willie Jackson. When I say “Order!”, you sit down.

💬 Maureen Pugh: I take offence at being accused of being a right-wing fascist. I request that the member withdraw and apologise.

I was talking about ACT. That wasn’t for you; it was for ACT.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I was distracted when that happened. The Hon Willie Jackson will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

No. Point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I’m not taking a point of order. You either do it or you’ll be leaving the Chamber.

I won’t be doing it, then.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Oh, well you’ll be leaving—you must leave the Chamber.

💬 Kieran McAnulty: Point of order. Mr Speaker, now that the Hon Willie Jackson’s speech has concluded—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, I’m not continuing until the Hon Willie Jackson leaves.

Can’t apologise to people I didn’t insult.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Come back. If you don’t come back, I’m going to name you. Come back now. E noho. I have made a ruling that you must obey. There is no discussion, and it’s certainly out of order to be interjecting on your way out. You do not want to be named. A Minister of the Government has not been named for a very long time. The Hon Willie Jackson will leave the debating chamber now, and no comments.

Hon Willie Jackson withdrew from the Chamber.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Now that the contribution from the Hon Willie Jackson has concluded, if Matt Doocey wished to seek leave to make his personal explanation, that would not be opposed by this side of the House.

Point of order. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now that the speech has concluded, you don’t need leave for that. You may make that statement.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The point I was trying to make is Willie Jackson said that I didn’t want Māori or Ngāi Tahu representatives to speak. I never said that in my speech. I said the issue was about the ability for those current representatives—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is not a personal—

Well it is because he—

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I’m on my feet. That is not a personal explanation; that is a debating point.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. The Labour Minister made a claim that was, if you look at the Hansard, factually incorrect. I did not say that. It was about the voting rights, not the ability for representatives to speak. So I believe I do have the ability, under a personal explanation, to state my case.

💬 DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have made the ruling.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa. Tuatahi ake, ka tika me mihi ki a koutou a Ngāi Tahu me ngā maunga, ngā awa, ngā whenua o Te Wai Pounamu, kei te mihi.

[Mr Speaker, greetings to you. Greetings, everyone. Firstly, it is appropriate that I acknowledge Ngāi Tahu and the mountains, rivers and land of the South Island of New Zealand, greetings.]

I’m really pleased to take a short call on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. It’s somewhat ironic that we have the National Party opposing this bill and talking about democracy, because, of course, it was the National Party that got rid of 14 elected councillors on Environment Canterbury in 2010 and did not return democracy to Canterbury for nine long years. I was one of those councillors that got unceremoniously removed.

The Green Party is supporting this bill because my experience of Canterbury Regional Council was that it had a very long way to go in implementing the Treaty partnership. One of the few good things that came out of the appointment of commissioners in Canterbury was the place of Ngāi Tahu and its two representatives around that council table and the greater recognition that that forced the council to have of things Māori and of Te Tiriti. I can remember, in 2007, having to argue strongly for the first representative who had expertise in tikanga Māori to be appointed to the hearings panel on the Waitaki River and that being opposed by other councillors despite the importance of the Waitaki River to Ngāi Tahu because it rises in the headwaters of Aoraki—their tūpuna.

So councils around this motu have got a long way to go in implementing Te Tiriti. This bill, by ensuring that there is a Ngāi Tahu voice at the table, will help move towards a better Treaty partnership. It will help ensure that there is a strong voice for Ngāi Tahu about the awa, the maunga, the whenua of Te Wai Pounamu, which constitutes much of their takiwā. This bill is ensuring that Ngāi Tahu can choose who those two representatives are. It does not diminish democracy; it improves democracy because, as Rino Tirikatene noted, it is increasing the number of councillors around the table from 14 to 16. It does not affect the remuneration of the existing councillors who are elected. It does not affect their responsibilities. It simply means that there are two representatives that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu will choose that will ensure that there is a loud voice. And our country, and Canterbury, will be better for that in ensuring that that voice is there.

At the moment, those two Tumu Taiao are only advisers. They do not have the same status as councillors. This bill will ensure that they have that equal status. It will bring Te Tiriti alive, and it will be good for the mahi of the regional council, in ensuring that its management of land, of waters, of the coast, of soils is actually a deeper management, with a deeper recognition of the things that are important in our country of Aotearoa, and that is having Te Tiriti as our founding constitutional document. The Green Party supports this bill. Kia ora.

Point of order. Mr Speaker, I just want to raise with you Speakers’ ruling 144/4 and would ask that, at a later date, you might reflect on that ruling. Thank you.

I will indeed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to stand and speak on this bill. I was surprised when Mr Doocey said we shouldn’t change this piece of law because the way local government has worked in Canterbury for the past 150 years has been fine. I could hear some of my Ngāi Tahu friends choke. I think that he should perhaps go and read the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act and the Crown apology appended to it. It will become pretty readily apparent that things haven’t worked fine for many.

But, I mean, I think this bill begs the question of what it means to be mana whenua. Is it just someone who we invite to give a karakia or a pōwhiri from time to time or is it someone we engage in meaningful discussion, who we have actually around the table on an equal footing? And Ngāi Tahu do occupy a very special place in Canterbury and the South Island. Environment Canterbury is in a unique position of Ngāi Tahu being the only iwi. So when they do want to engage with mana whenua, there is only one iwi to do that with. So the fact of actually having them around the table, two members that have not only a voice but the same deliberative powers and voting powers, is really, really important. And it’s not for us, if we’re going to have those members of Ngāi Tahu around the table, to say how they’re selected. That’s for Ngāi Tahu. That’s why an appointment process is an entirely appropriate mechanism. And Christchurch and Canterbury are in a unique and privileged position to be able to engage in this way with Ngāi Tahu.

So whilst the last 150 years might not have been great in terms of our relationships with Ngāi Tahu, I look forward to a future when this bill will improve it significantly. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The ACT Party opposes this bill. It seeks to add up to two unelected representatives to the Canterbury Regional Council, and it conflicts directly with ACT’s principles that only democratically elected representatives should serve on councils and in Parliament. Environment Canterbury—or ECan, Canterbury Regional Council—already has two mana whenua appointees which give advice to council on tikanga to help them with decision making. That appears to be a better way to actually address some of the issues that councils face when they’re looking at planning, consenting, long-term plans, and where and how to provide community services for the people that live in that district. That’s why this bill won’t actually help address any of those issues. What it will do is add two extra individuals to the 14-person council, now 16; it will dilute democratic representation; it will essentially override basic democratic principles; it will result in unelected members having the same voting powers as elected members; and it will increase costs to the Canterbury ratepayers. For the ACT Party, that is sufficient reason to oppose it.

But I want to respond to some of the things that the Hon Willie Jackson said before he departed from the House. Mr Jackson has illustrated the problem with this approach. If the Government proposes to allocate some rights to special classes of people because of who their grandparents were or because of their lineage, that takes us back thousands of years, back to the feudal history that New Zealanders who came here by sailing ship, by steamship, and, more recently, by aeroplane left behind in the countries that they left to come to New Zealand for a better life. And for the benefit of those members who support this bill, I want to bring that back to why we’re here. It’s to make a better New Zealand. We won’t achieve that by allocating special rights to special classes of people. That is a form of feudalism.

Now, we’ve heard about partnership approaches. That’s all well and good. I’ve been involved in construction project alliances where the client and the stakeholders and people get together and they agree that if you work out a certain course, then more benefits get shared amongst the groups that participate. They all have skin in the game. Those participants in construction alliances are appointed to represent their group’s interests. Now, the difference between that and a democratically elected council is that voters get to choose who represents them. This bill removes the right of voters to choose two of what will become 16 members, even though there are already provisions in the law, in a law rushed through under urgency by this Government, to create Māori wards so that individuals who are nominated and qualified can stand to be elected in those Māori wards—and the Canterbury Regional Council has the ability to do that. But instead, they have come and they’ve asked for this local bill to be proposed, essentially to create two additional seats for individuals.

Now, we can understand why Mr Jackson thinks that’s a good idea, because he’s an old-school class warrior who believes that the pie is only so big and it should be carved up and reallocated according to his vision and to those in power. The ACT Party fundamentally rejects that approach. We do not believe that that is helpful to New Zealanders. We do not believe that the people of Canterbury would appreciate that approach, and this Government should not allow this bill to proceed because it divides New Zealanders rather than brings them together, allocates special rights and privileges to those that should only be available to elected representatives.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to rise and take a call on this piece of legislation. In Canterbury we’re innovative, we’re resourceful, we’re good at coming up with local solutions to fix local issues, and that is simply what this piece of legislation does.

This piece of legislation, or this proposed piece of legislation, is a local bill, a local piece of legislation that Environment Canterbury—we call them ECan—have asked for themselves. It simply puts into permanency something that was put in place under the previous National Government in 2010—something that has actually worked very, very well since then. It simply puts it into permanency so that these people, Ngāi Tahu, the mana whenua, the kaitiaki of the land who have close ties, bonds, and connections with the land, have the ability to have a seat at the table and hence voting rights. They’re in addition to the current 14 councillors. They are not replacing any councillors.

I think that this is a fantastic piece of legislation. Local solutions for local issues. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you so much, Mr Speaker We stand here this evening to ensure, I hope, with this bill, if it passes, that we have direct Ngāi Tahu representation at the council level because direct representation is not what we currently have at Environment Canterbury. We have two wonderful Tumu Taiao—they are mana whenua experts—but they do not have decision-making powers; they have no vote.

One of the great joys of being an immigrant to Aotearoa has been learning about Te Tiriti, learning more about and gaining a greater understanding of the ongoing impacts of colonisation, the rights of tangata whenua, and on how we have gradually been moving towards a genuine partnership as outlined in Te Tiriti—a partnership that isn’t a “nice-to-have” but an absolute obligation; and you cannot work in partnership with any group that has been given a seat but no vote, no voice. It isn’t good enough, it doesn’t work for Canterbury, and that’s why I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I, along with my colleagues, also rise to speak in opposition to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. This is a case of history trying to—I would hazard a guess, unsuccessfully—repeat itself. This House has been here before. As has been well canvassed already, we have a bill here that seeks to reinstate direct Ngāi Tahu representation to the Canterbury Regional Council—or ECan as we call it back home—after the 2016 Act was repealed three years later. In 2019, when this bill first appeared before the House, it didn’t pass its first reading, and there is very good reason for that. Thank goodness for the Opposition of New Zealand First, ACT, and National. It was a bad bill back then. It is a bad bill now, setting a bad precedent.

My colleague Gerry Brownlee, who I’m actually—very ably, I might add—stepping in for right now; he was supposed to be taking this call. He said to this House in 2019 that it is a local bill that is trying to make changes that would be included in primary legislation. Despite all of the very emotional rhetoric and mud being slung over the House this afternoon, that is the reason that we are objecting to this. It is a bad bill. The Labour Party actually should have paid attention to Mr Brownlee back then, because it would not have set it on a course to make the same mistake that it’s about to make today.

The other issue that we take exception with is that this bill is a result of ECan using its democratically elected powers to undemocratically force a change on weak Canterbury ratepayers without our consent. Not one of us ratepayers have been consulted on this. Using the process outlined in this bill, Ngāi Tahu would confirm two appointees in a process that has not required democratic input. Those two appointees, as we’ve discussed, would sit alongside a democratically elected council with full voting rights. I ask the Labour Party, the Government, to consider treating Canterbury ratepayers with a little more respect.

While I’m on that subject, the contributions we have heard from all sides of the House this afternoon have been patronising in the extreme—absolutely patronising. Why can the Government not consider that an iwi as successful and as powerful as Ngāi Tahu, who will undoubtedly have people of exceptional experience, skill set, calibre, are able to stand on their own two feet, able to stand for local body election on their own credentials, without having to be hand-held and shepherded into the council chamber on the back of this bill. I think the people of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu deserve more respect from the Government than this bill. It is disrespectful of the vast talent and depth within the organisation.

To be clear, the importance of mana whenua representation at all levels of political decision-making is not lost on us in the National Party. It might pay the Government to remember the advances that Māoridom have made under former National Governments. Might I remind the Government of the 60 Treaty settlements that were negotiated under the National Government. We are very clear that mana whenua have a critical role in decision making and policy making and lawmaking in this country, but it is not through an appointment process such as being put forward in this bill by this Government. The fact of the matter is there is already mana whenua representation at the council table, thanks to the two Tumu Taiao roles which are very ably filled by Iaean Cranwell and Yvette Couch-Lewis.

The National Party opposes this bill again because it is no better than the bill that came before this House in 2019. It is a local bill trying to reform primary legislation. It is being undemocratically forced on the people of Canterbury, and National opposes it.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, and thank you for the privilege to speak on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill.

I want to just say it’s a good day because this really does set the benchmark for all local councils to look at how they enact the Treaty partnership. Fundamentally, it’s good for that reason alone. Obviously, there has been some work done, and that entity has decided that in terms of recognising how to best move forward with Ngāi Tahu, this is the best way forward. I often get asked how is it that local government can have a functioning, truly authentic, and genuine partnership with mana whenua Māori. This is something that people will look at and say, “We want that too.” So this is good.

I know in my own patch on Rēkohu, Wharekauri, the Chatham Islands, this very thing where you have imi, iwi, looking at how to enact governance with tauiwi on an island that big, this will be looked at carefully. Too often you have advisers or others that act in a way where they don’t have mana whenua authority or authentication to act in a way where they are speaking truly for mana whenua Māori. Then you get confusion because some, like myself, who aren’t from Wellington when I was elected on to Wellington city—I’m not from here—but I certainly made it clear that having a Treaty partnership enacted through something like this would have been ideal, solely because they could have spoken as true mana whenua representatives.

This is a good bill. This is a good day, and I commend this bill to the House.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the right to reply to conclude this debate. What a debate it has been. We have certainly canvassed a wide range of views around the House. But I am very proud of this bill. I am proud of being a sponsor of this bill and for the work of Environment Canterbury, along with Ngāi Tahu, to put back in place a proven successful arrangement. I am saddened but not surprised at the opposition from the National Party and the ACT Party. However, I do want to respond to just a few points that were raised. Why is this a local bill? Well, as I said in my speech, this is a bespoke arrangement which is unique to Environment Canterbury, cannot really be duplicated anywhere else beyond the South Island, I would imagine, because of the unique arrangement of having a single iwi which is the Treaty partner over such a vast geographic area which encompasses ECan—Environment Canterbury. So that’s why it’s a local bill. But it seeks to modify those pieces of legislation specifically for that region—that’s why it’s a local bill.

We opposed the actions of the National Government at the time, but we never opposed the appointment of mana whenua representatives to Environment Canterbury. In fact, I signalled in one of my speeches, I remember, what will happen when the arrangement ends and how can we ensure that this endures, and this is what we’re doing right now. We’re ensuring that the arrangement of Ngāi Tahu councillors endures through the passage of this local bill.

I don’t really want to go into the remarks around feudalism and the likes from the ACT Party, suffice to say that the foundation of Aotearoa is built on a Treaty foundation, built on the bicultural reach between the iwi, between the chiefs, and the Crown. That is the foundation, and that is the guiding beacon which this bill actually represents, because Ngāi Tahu representation—why? Because Ngāi Tahu is the Treaty partner. Ngāi Tahu aren’t gaining any great advantage. They are only getting what the Treaty guarantees them, and Environment Canterbury understands that. They have put that into this bill. It’s been proven successful in the past, and they’re just reactivating it through the passage of this bill.

I acknowledge the passion which the Hon Willie Jackson committed to this debate. He did actually cross the line, and he was admonished for that and disciplined, but I do acknowledge that, you know, he is a powerful advocate as the Minister for Māori Development. You will not take that out of Willie—Mr Jackson, Mr Jackson.

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: And you will always cross the line!

Yes, te rārangi toa—he stands that front line.

But I want to acknowledge all of the contributions from around the House, in particular Eugenie Sage, an experienced former councillor on Environment Canterbury, and I thank the Green Party for their support of this legislation. I acknowledge them and that they get it—they get it. We get it on this side of the House. Mr Brownlee, yes, I also recall from the last bill that we debated in this House—you know, we didn’t have the numbers on that day, but I said to Mr Brownlee that we would be back. I said that like the big mountain Aoraki, it stands tall and it endures. It stands tall in the day and in the night, and we’re back again, looming large with this momentous bill, and I’m really looking forward to it going to select committee, getting full consideration and examination from members of the public, who are welcome to submit. I thank the members of the Māori Affairs Committee, who will be ushering the bill through that very important process. So I look forward to contributing into that process as well, and I welcome Mr Doocey to do so as well.

But this is a timely bill that we’re looking to reactivate, and I’m thoroughly excited that we can have this first reading and take it to the next step. I’m really looking forward to that, and so I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.

The question is, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be considered by the Māori Affairs Committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill referred to the Māori Affairs Committee.

Members, it has come time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. The House will resume at 7 p.m.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

The House is resumed. I’m going to ask the Government Whips, before I ask the Serjeant-at-Arms, to inquire of where Mr Jackson is and require him to come the House immediately.

💬 Damien Smith: He’s over in Huxley’s with—

Sorry?

💬 Damien Smith: He’s over in Huxley’s. I saw him over in Huxley’s.

I still can’t hear him, sorry.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Do you want me to give him a call?

No, we’re going to get on with the business of the House while we’re waiting for him. I call on members’ order of the day No. 1.