Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill

I move, That the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill be now read a second time.

Tuatahi, e te Māngai o te Whare, me mihi au ki aku whanaunga nō Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, me te Kaunihera Taiao o Waitaha. Nā tō kōrua mahi tahi i hautū nei i tēnei pire ki te Whare nei.

[Firstly, Mr Speaker, I must acknowledge my relatives from the Rūnanga of Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury. Your collaboration has guided this bill to this House.]

I want to acknowledge the partners of this local bill, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and the Canterbury Regional Council, or Environment Canterbury, whose mahi tahi has been reflected in this bill. I’m so pleased that it’s come to the second reading. This is a momentous occasion. I want to acknowledge all the work that has been done thus far, in respect of the examination of the bill. In particular, I want to acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee for their very thorough examination of the bill. In what were difficult COVID circumstances, they were able to hear from submitters, from representatives of iwi, from the councils within the Canterbury region, and I want to acknowledge them for their very thorough examination and thoughtful consideration of the issues that were raised. Now that we’re at second reading, I commend the committee for their amendments to the bill, for which a lot of it was around greater precision with the drafting, and clarification around certain provisions. I want to acknowledge the officials and all those that were involved in actually making what is a great bill even better. So I’m very proud to support it i tēnei pānuitanga tuarua [at the second reading.]

If I can just recap. This bill is about reinstating mana whenua representation, representatives from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on the Canterbury Regional Council, Environment Canterbury. I want to acknowledge the National Government under Sir John Key and Bill English for, I guess, putting the circumstances in place whereby Ngāi Tahu representatives on the council were able to come into being. That happened in 2010 with the appointment of seven commissioners. There was a whanaunga o Ngāti Wheke—Donald Couch was the first Ngāi Tahu councillor appointed to that august group. Later, there was another whanaunga: Elizabeth Cunningham nō Koukourarata. Further to that, in 2016, there was some transitional legislation which made two appointees from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu—put them into law, put that into statute. So that arrangement worked. It worked for the Canterbury region. It worked and was very successful for nine years. There was an attempt to put it in place for the last local body elections—that, unfortunately, didn’t transpire.

But I’m so pleased that we are here at the second reading of this bill. Upon its passage, this bill will ensure that those Ngāi Tahu representatives can be put in place by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to coincide with the upcoming local body elections that will take place later this year.

There were a lot of submissions on this bill. Look, it’s fair to say that there are diverging views; there are opposing views. I’m sure we will hear more about those views from the other side’s contributions today. But I want to focus on the themes that were in support of this bill, and, in particular, the areas that were strongly advocated for, not only by Ngāi Tahu but also by many councils within the Canterbury region, such as the Selwyn District Council, the Hurunui District Council, and the Christchurch City Council—all supportive of this bill—and also many other interested members of Canterbury who were in support.

As I said at the outset, this bill works. It works for Canterbury. It works for a vast region of Aotearoa—the largest geographic area of any regional council in the country, servicing the second-largest population area of all regional councils in Aotearoa. This arrangement works. The themes that were conveyed were that mana whenua should have a voice of their own at the table and to be able to work with Environment Canterbury as partners. That has been demonstrated in the nine years when it was in place, and that can continue.

I want to stress that this is a very bespoke bill. The arrangements that we are putting in place in this bill likely cannot be duplicated anywhere else, particularly in the North Island, especially, because we are dealing with a discrete, very large geographic regional council area and a single iwi which has vast connections, as we all know, to Te Wai Pounamu, through the South, and is a major player, on their own, in the South Island economy and in society in general.

So having that mana whenua present at the council table is so important. The other areas which are so important is that having that knowledge and expertise can lead to better decision-making. That is what came through loud and clear from submissions. Also, it has worked well in the past. Most importantly, having mana whenua representation supports Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that partnership which has now driven through so many aspects—whether it’s executive Government, whether it’s through the courts, and now we have this arrangement which has worked well in the past and which can be formalised through the passage of this legislation.

This is a really great bill for the Canterbury, Waitaha region. As I’ve mentioned, it’s an extremely large, vast area, and it requires a lot of expertise from the actual councillors that sit around that table to manage so many difficult and complex issues around fresh water, land management, and coastal management. These are very complex areas and having Ngāi Tahu representatives that have great expertise in te taha Māori and in terms of Ngāi Tahu connection to their ancestral landscape and to the greater Canterbury regional area leads to better decision-making, and it’s one of the aspects which has great support from the submitters.

Now, I know there were opposing views. I just want to pick up on a couple of points. One was in relation to the size of the council. I’m pleased that the Māori Affairs Committee has left the bill as it is, in terms of the addition of two members to a 16-member regional council. As I mentioned, the addition of those two Ngāi Tahu councillors will not decrease the workload of Environment Canterbury; as I mentioned, it is a very vast area and there are some very big, complex issues that they deal with every day. But having those additions to try and take away two other normally elected councillors would be a very complex process to try and undo—and, in fact, I believe it wouldn’t really be possible under a local bill of this type to be able to do that. So I’m pleased that this will be an enlarged and enhanced council table, with the addition of the Ngāi Tahu representatives.

Just in conclusion, I want to also commend the committee for ensuring that the remuneration of the councillors will stay as it is, based on the method of calculation which is retained in the bill. I think it’s very important that those good citizens who put themselves forward to be able to be councillors are fairy remunerated. I know that they will continue to do a great job for Waitaha, Canterbury. I want to mihi to all of those who are supporting this bill, and I commend it to the House. Kia ora tātou.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. The National Party is opposing this bill because it alters and offends two key principles of the democracy that we have enjoyed in this country for many decades and is fundamental to the success of New Zealand as a democratic country. The first is that all New Zealanders have equal voting rights, and the second is that there is accountability at the ballot box on a regular basis. So these are two key principles: equal voting rights for all New Zealanders and, secondly, accountability at the ballot box.

Now, this bill, what it does is that, for the Canterbury Regional Council, it says that all the people in Canterbury—Māori, Pākehā, Chinese; all ethnicities—get to vote for 14 councillors, and then, after the election, Ngāi Tahu have the ability to appoint two more. So that clearly moves away from equal voting rights, because those in Ngāi Tahu are getting extra representation. They’re getting their representation as a normal citizen amongst the first 14 councillors, and they’re getting two extra.

Secondly, when it comes to accountability, one of the most fundamental disciplines on all politicians is that if they go too far away from public opinion, they’ll be thrown out at the next election. “Throw the bums out!” is a very fundamental part of democracy, but under this bill there is no ability to do that. Ngāi Tahu will continue to have two representatives, regardless of how they perform and how the public thinks about them. So that fundamental part of our democracy is abandoned.

So why are these important? Why is equal suffrage important? Why is the idea that every New Zealander should have an equal say in who governs them and in who makes the decisions affecting their lives and their families and their businesses and the ability to live in an open society—why is that important? Well, I would have thought that was fairly self-explanatory, but it seems to me a pretty fundamental part of who we are as New Zealanders is that all New Zealanders have one standard of citizenship and that their votes carry as much weight as their neighbour’s. My vote carries as much weight as your vote, as his vote, and as her vote. Regardless of who our grandparents are or who we are, our votes are dealt with equally, and you just have to look around the rest of the world to see in other countries where a different approach is taken and it doesn’t work out well.

Why is it important to have democratic accountability for our elected representatives, or the people that represented us on councils, and, particularly in this House, as a member of Parliament? Well, again, you just have to look around the rest of the world where Governments are not accountable and cannot be thrown out. How does that work? It doesn’t tend to work very well. Show me a dictatorship that is unaccountable that works well—it doesn’t work well.

So for decades now, two key fundamental parts of our democracy have been equal voting rights for all New Zealanders and, secondly, accountability at the ballot box. Now, this bill changes both those things and discards both those things. Both are things which are precious and should be treasured by New Zealanders and are treasured by New Zealanders, and are assumed to be the case for all New Zealanders—those are being changed.

Now, this is a very significant constitutional change to the way that we organise our affairs in this country, brought through by a local bill in regard to Canterbury. The member introducing it said, “Well, this is fine. It’s only dealing with Canterbury. Canterbury is special and Ngāi Tahu are the only iwi in that area and, therefore, it’s all nice and simple.”, but surely even he recognises that it sets a precedent. There will be every other regional councils and local government, territorial, whether it’s cities—the same logic would apply, would it not?

Well, hang on a moment, if it’s important for mana whenua to have representation on the Canterbury council, well, why not in the Waikato, why not in Wellington, or why not in Auckland? So this will set a precedent. Then ultimately, if it’s good enough for local government, maybe it’s good enough for national Government, and indeed we should have mana whenua, various iwi, appointing members of Parliament. Now, that’s not being proposed at the moment, but the logic is the same.

We have Willie Jackson, the Cabinet Minister, saying, quite simply, “Well, the nature of democracy has changed” and that that justifies it. Well, I don’t know about you—and maybe Gerry Brownlee, my colleague, might be able to help me out on this—but I can’t recall a constitutional convention held in this country where we decided as a country that our democracy had changed and equal voting rights for all New Zealanders was something that we no longer agreed with and that accountability at the ballot box was something that we no longer agreed with. I can’t recall having a constitutional convention where we decided that.

I can’t recall a referendum where New Zealanders were consulted on this and decided that “No, no. Actually, we no longer think that all New Zealanders should be treated equally when it comes to the electoral laws of this country.” I don’t recall a referendum—Arena Williams—when we were asked, “Do we no longer believe that equal suffrage is a good idea and that that should be the rule of thumb in New Zealand?” No, I don’t recall anybody asking me whether it’s appropriate for the councillors at our local government levels or MPs should be accountable every three years at the ballot box, and whether that no longer is a good idea. So who has made the case?

Well, thank you, Mr—the member who brought this bill in has not really made the case—Rino Tirikatene. I don’t recall him actually making the case for the change very strongly. But what amazes me is that the Minister of Justice, Kris Faafoi, has not said a word on all this, not interested. A very significant change to our electoral laws, and no arguments are being put forward by the Minister of Justice. You would have thought that on something as consequential as this, we might hear from the Prime Minister—nothing from her. She’s happy to give speeches at Harvard, where she talks about trust in Government being important, and yet hasn’t had the decency to argue the case for this bill, or even acknowledge that it exists. The inclination is to say, “Oh, it’s only a local bill, nothing to do with us.” Well, it is only going to pass if Labour votes for it, and they’ve indicated that they will already.

Where are the institutions that should be raising this as an issue? Crown Law—where are they? If you look at the report—and I encourage members of the public to have a look at it; you can find it if you look hard enough—it’s about three or four pages. Crown Law, the guardians of the constitution and the law of the land, come in, they write a report and say, “Yes, this breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It discriminates against non - Ngaī Tahu members”—

💬 Hon Member: No, it doesn’t.

It does. It does say that, very clearly. It discriminates against non - Māori New Zealanders. But it says that the Treaty justifies it, and that’s about the extent of the argument.

Tāmati Coffey: “The Treaty justifies it.”

Yeah, well, when did we decide as a country that the Treaty trumps democracy? I’d like to have an answer from the other side: when did we decide as a country that the Treaty trumps democracy when it comes to equal voting rights and accountability at the voting rights?

Tāmati Coffey: 1840.

Yes—well, that’s right. If they talk about partnership—meaning equal—then maybe the next change to this bill would be that there would be eight out of the 16 councillors appointed by Ngāi Tahu—I don’t know. Maybe that would be appropriate.

The final point I’d like to know is: where are the commentators? The institution of the Crown Law, I think, has done a feeble job in arguing the case, or even raising the issues properly. The Attorney-General on the sister bill to this one—the Rotorua bill—at least was more robust, but the Attorney-General seemed to be silent on this particular bill. I’d love to hear from Geoffrey Palmer and all the constitutional experts who usually have a lot to say about issues such as this. I’d love to hear from the legal profession. I’m amazed that we haven’t heard from the Law Society and the Auckland district. None of them have had anything to say on this bill, which has been one of the most significant constitutional changes in our history.

So we’re voting against this, and we acknowledge the importance and the precious nature of equal voting rights for all New Zealanders and for accountability at the ballot box. Those are important principles for our democracy, and we will defend them.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Crocodile tears—crocodile tears are something that I heard about, learnt about, when I was very young, and actually that is what I hear when I heard that previous contribution from that speaker, Paul Goldsmith, because it was that party that brought this arrangement in the first place.

At that time, they weren’t standing here calling for equal suffrage. No, not at all. They needed innovative solutions that suited them politically at the time, so they voted this in. In 2016, you had National Party member after National Party member talking about the great relationship that was going to be formed between Environment Canterbury (ECan) and Ngāi Tahu. And you know what? It worked. It really did work. It worked so well to the point where we heard, in select committee, submission after submission from people who are close to the fire, who are close to the action, and they were saying “We had this taken away from us. It worked for us. We had representation at the decision-making table and we want it back.” So to the National Party members who are standing here crying foul, I say: take a look back in history, read the history books, read the Hansard, because you guys started this one. They started this, Madam Speaker. They started it—not you. Not you at all.

Look, I want to point out—well, first of all, I want to thank those people that turned up to the Māori Affairs Committee to give their contributions on this. The tone was set right from the start when Ngāi Tahu actually fronted up to the committee and they talked about their settlement. Because in their settlement, there’s a new age of—

💬 Rino Tirikatene: New age of cooperation.

TĀMATI COFFEY: What’s that?

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Cooperation.

TĀMATI COFFEY: A new age of cooperation is what they talked about in their Treaty settlement. That’s right. The landmark Treaty settlement that Ngāi Tahu went into talked about a new age of cooperation, and that’s what this bill is. That’s what this arrangement is. It’s a new age of cooperation. It’s what the Crown signed up to in their Treaty settlement back in the day, and it’s what they take pains to explain every time they come to a committee of Parliament. They say, “We signed up to a new age of cooperation and we need the Crown to remember that.” Unfortunately, in this House, there is a huge amount, especially among elected politicians, of political amnesia. There is absolute political amnesia in this House and it’s beholden upon organisations like Ngāi Tahu to actually come to the House to remind elected politicians who are newly washed in—and some have washed out at the time—and to be able to say to them, “We signed up to a new age of cooperation and we’re here to get our dues.” This bill gives them their dues. This bill gives them the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way, to be able to address their Treaty of Waitangi commitments that this Crown signed up to, that elected officials in this House must adhere to. That’s what they signed up to.

In the select committee process, we heard about a couple of key differences between this bill and the bill that went through in the last Parliament, which was defeated. That was that they took the time to actually point out that if a Māori constituency, by nature of the Māori wards that were allocated at the start of last year—if the iwi wanted to be able to work with council to establish Māori wards, then they shouldn’t be prevented from being able to do that. And we stand here and we say we support that idea and we also support—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What? Both?

💬 Hon Member: Yeah, you’re allowed both.

TĀMATI COFFEY: Absolutely—absolutely. Because, and this is the reason, people just take it at face value. But actually, what Ngāi Tahu are doing here is they’re making sure that they’ve got Ngāi Tahu representation on ECan; Ngāi Tahu representation, not Māori representation, not any other Te Arawa person that’s living down in Christchurch, but actually Ngāi Tahu representation. And there’s something in that for other councils around the country, that actually by nature of Te Tiriti o Waitangi there is an obligation that the Crown have to follow. Absolutely. And we discussed that in select committee and I completely support that recommendation.

There was also conversation around the issue of remuneration and whether or not they should be paid or not, whether or not they should be paid from the existing pool. You see, for a long time Māori that have advised on regional councils, on local councils have been there by nature of the cup of tea and scones that happens after the meeting. They’re milked for all of their information, their historical knowledge, their mātauranga Māori, and what did they get for it? For many years they got a cup of tea and some scones. Long are those days gone. They are well gone and it’s time to start remunerating Māori that are sitting around those decision-making tables over and above the tea and scones that for so long our people had to put up with. This bill changes that.

There were a lot of submitters that came through, and they were very worried about this bogeyman called co-governance. They said the co-governance, it’s the start of the end, it’s the slippery slope, and that’s what their side of the House actually purport to agree with. But if you just have a look at a few of the Hansard debates, from the time that this first bill was put into place back in 2016, you’ll find that members that are sitting on that side of the House today gave speeches absolutely in favour of this, absolutely in favour of this.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not this; quite different.

TĀMATI COFFEY: And this country—“It’s different—it’s different.”, he says. Right oh! OK, we’ll take your word for it. You can wait for your contribution and you can have your words then. But this is a really big issue. No, not you, Madam Speaker. Never you—never you. Never you, Madam Speaker.

You see, the country—we have come a long way. We’ve come a long, long way. Every year we get better at this stuff. This stuff won’t go away. Co-governance, Māori looking for meaningful engagement and partnership at the decision-making table will not go away. And if that side of the House don’t understand it, they should probably listen to the words of their ex-Treaty negotiations Minister, the Hon Chris Finlayson, who only a very short time ago wrote a media article, actually just calling out some people—some of those people that think of co-governance as the bogeyman. He said this, in his article, dated 29 May 2022, authored by Chris Finlayson—the article was titled “Co-governance should be embraced—not feared.” He says, “ ‘Co-governance’ has become a term that [many] people don’t understand. They think it means co-government. People who are frightened by co-governance think they’ll be locked out of access to our natural resources, for example. When what it really means is that involving iwi in a myriad of decisions can actually result in a better country.” How about that—how about that? His words, and I quote, “The people I call ‘the KKK brigade’ are out there. They dream of a world that never was, and never could be. They are the people—and these words,” he says, aren’t his, “but are taken from a former British foreign secretary—that you can call the ‘sour right’”—call them the sour right, he says. “They don’t really understand tangata whenua. They don’t really like change.”

So I stand here, having been through a select committee process, having listened to the various people that are very nervous about what co-governance looks like, are very nervous about what this means for ECan. I also listened to the very supportive mayors of the Canterbury region as they sat there and told us that they absolutely supported this and they wanted to have Ngāi Tahu representation, not Māori representation but Ngāi Tahu representation, on Environment Canterbury. They sat there, they talked to the committee, and they told us that this is what they wanted. As elected officials, we need to listen to them. As elected officials in this House, we have listened to them.

This bill will pass, and it comes with my absolute commendation. This is something that we absolutely must do. And what it will do is actually set a precedent for other councils around the country who are looking for ways that they can give effect to the Tiriti of Waitangi partnership in their own part of Aotearoa New Zealand. And if this sets the way, then that’s great. If they choose to take up Māori wards, as many councils around the country are doing because this Labour Government put them in place, then that’s a great thing too.

Let’s make sure that it never is put at risk by an incoming Opposition who are all fired up about this bogeyman called co-governance, and make sure that they do everything that they can to undo it and to put race relations in this country back another 183 years because they still don’t understand what the meaning of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is; they don’t understand the partnership. They need to be held to account for that, and they will be held to account for that. An Opposition that thinks that they’re going to stand in the Māori seats really needs to have a think about what their position is when it comes to things like co-governance. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I just wanted to start by responding to that last member, Tāmati Coffey, who resumed his seat. I think he clearly missed out one point, which we’re still waiting for an answer on: why isn’t this a Government bill? If these Government members are so cock-a-hoop that this is the right thing to do, why is it not a Government bill? And also, when he raises the very unique set of circumstances when the Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors were sacked and appointees were put in place—that mechanism was done with a Government bill. So National did it with a Government bill, knowing if the public didn’t like it they would vote us out at the next election. So why would a Labour Government not do the same? Why are we not debating a Government bill today? And we still do not have the answer to that question.

And like many people in this House, tonight, when we come back into the Chamber in the second reading to debate the select committee stage—normally there’s a lot of questions that have been answered during the select committee stage. I would argue this bill comes back in with more questions than answers. I think what the reason for that is, purely—because what we have here is a workaround. I raised it in the first reading and we still haven’t had a response from the sponsoring member, Rino Tirikatene. Why is this a local bill? Because when we asked the Clerk’s Office why this can be a local bill—let’s not forget, the contribution of Paul Goldsmith raised a very valid point: this debate today is does the Treaty trump democracy? Now, I’m open to that debate. I think many members of Parliament want to engage in that debate. But why is that debate not being driven by a Government bill?

What we’ve got here is a local bill put in by ECan, who did no consultation with their local community. Go to the submitters. What’s interesting, when you look at the number of submissions there were—1,651 that the Māori Affairs Committee received, 74 in favour, 1,571 opposed. And one of the common themes that came out was ECan did no consultation. So that’s another question we’re landed with in the second reading: why did ECan not do any local consultation? The reason it comes back in and is allowed to be a local bill—because, of course, a local bill can’t change a primary statute. That’s why this is a workaround bill—because the Government did not want to change primary legislation.

Because of that—now, well, really, Pandora’s Box is potentially going to be open. Look at the submission from the Remuneration Authority, which clearly said it undermined them as an independent entity. And let’s be very clear, because Tāmati Coffey said, “Well, this is going to set to a precedent”—well, it will set a precedent. Because, in fact, that’s what the Remuneration Authority actually said. It said it’s “inconsistent with the mandatory criteria” under national legislative frameworks for determining elected member remuneration. This would interfere with the authority’s independence in setting remuneration for elected members. It would create an unfair advantage for the members of ECan over all other elected councillors in New Zealand. This Government that champions equity is not delivering equity very well—equity when it suits them.

This is why we have a bill that comes before us, that comes out of the select committee with more questions than answers. So we’ve got the question that wasn’t really resolved by the select committee to do with the Remuneration Authority’s submission. It’s interesting because you can’t—well, they do want to have it both ways because ECan said in follow-up discussions, with the cap, they’re wondering whether they reduce salaries to take on board the two extra members. And ECan, of course—because they’re not going to vote for Christmas, are they?—said a drop in councillor remuneration rates would have a significant detrimental effect on diversity of candidates.

So this is why we’ve got, actually, a bill that should have come in as a Government bill. It comes in as a local bill and actually causes a lot more questions than answers. For Tāmati Coffey to get up today and talk about this bill when, of course, he was the sponsor of the Rotorua local bill—another local bill that actually had to be scrapped because the Attorney-General said it was discriminatory and would breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And that’s the problem with this approach. Then, in his defence, apparently the argument is now why the rest of caucus didn’t know it was so flawed—apparently, as a process in the Labour caucus, they don’t take local bills to get approved by their caucus.

So that raises another question: has this bill been in front of the Labour caucus? Do they know, actually, what they are voting on for tonight? Because what we’ve got is a bill that, in fact, is going to increase the numbers. And I’ve been very clear from the first reading—this isn’t about the appointment of Ngāi Tahu representatives into ECan because, in fact, they’re already there. This bill will enact remuneration and voting rights. What we still don’t have an answer to is: what will be the total numbers? And why is ECan still allowed to increase their number from 12 to 14, making it the largest regional council in New Zealand, and also have Māori wards? Why are they able to do both of those?

When you look at a range of submissions that were received, there were a number of people who thought this bill should not proceed. One submitter said “adding appointed members in addition to those democratically elected is a move away from democracy towards oligarchy”—this is what they thought this was going to do. Because as our lead caller said, the Hon Paul Goldsmith, this is fundamentally going to change democracy in New Zealand. We are going to move away from equal suffrage—one vote and one person. And what we’ve heard previously in debates around this issue—and, in fact, I think it might have been Tāmati Coffey who mentioned it in the first reading—there’s now a phrase Labour uses: these bills are just tweaking democracy. Well, I think we just need to look around the world at what happens when you start tweaking democracy.

So I come back to my original point—where what we are debating in this Chamber tonight is: does the Treaty trump democracy? Now, I think every member of Parliament is up for that debate. That’s a valid debate in New Zealand today. But why is it being shoehorned through in a local bill where ECan, Environment Canterbury, did no consultation with local Cantabrians? Then we have a bill that’s pitched up in the House and we’ve been told now that local bills don’t go through the approval process in the Labour caucus because, of course, they would have picked up Tāmati Coffey’s very flawed Rotorua local bill—that’s what they’re claiming, if it has.

And then we have this bill, that’s now come out of select committee, where there are very real questions posed about how they’re going to address some of the flaws in this bill around remuneration; around the consultation; and, in fact, what is going to happen to the appointees where there is no accountability? And what is going to happen when Māori wards are enacted for ECan as well? These are very real questions and I do look forward to some of the Government members who decided that they didn’t want this to be a Government bill, they were happy for it to go through in a local bill—and we’re very keen to hear some of their responses tonight. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. I think we’ve come to a part in the debate where the ideas have become very high level, a little bit abstract, and it might be useful for me, as a member of the very excellent Māori Affairs Committee, to share some of the work that the Māori Affairs Committee put into this local bill, which has been advanced by Environment Canterbury and has been brought to this House as a local bill, championed by my colleague Rino Tirikatene.

So let me first start with a little bit about what Environment Canterbury does. It extends from the—

💬 Nicola Grigg: Not much.

—north of Kaikōura to the Waitaki River and from Horomaka / Banks Peninsula to Aoraki / Mount Cook. I hear calls from the other side of the House that Environment Canterbury does not do much, but I would say that all local government representation is very important, and that, on this side of the House, we value the contribution that local government brings to all levels of representative democracy. I’ll return to that later about why local democracy is important and why representation is important. But let me just tell you more about Environment Canterbury’s role. So the kind of things that Environment Canterbury might do are around managing the effects of use of fresh water, land, air, and coastal waters. These things are resource management - heavy; they are technical in nature. It’s useful for people around the representative table to have expertise in these areas, whether they are farmers, whether they are business owners, whether they are community members, or whether they are iwi representatives with a kaitiaki relationship to the whenua that is being managed by the local councils. Things like developing regional policy statements and issuing consents—again, it’s really useful for the representatives around those tables to be able to interpret the advice that they receive, informed by a diverse background. We want those people around the local government table to bring a broad range of expertise. Things like managing rivers, mitigating soil erosion, and flood control—on that particular issue, it’s really helpful for representatives to be able to bring their expertise to bear in that.

So how does this bill enable local representatives around the table that we’re talking about to do that? Well, under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016, the Canterbury Regional Council had included two members appointed by Ministers on the recommendation of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu since then. The Act was repealed in 2019, but that was after the 2008 representation review undertaken by that body to decide how it should be formed from 2019 onwards. The reason why I talk about the functions of Environment Canterbury is that those inform the way that the representation review is considered. It’s really important to look at the sorts of skills that you need around the table before you determine how that’s going to be made up.

During that representation review, the Environment Canterbury (ECan) body stated that it had enjoyed the value and benefit of having two Ngāi Tahu representatives at the council table, and they considered how they could support continued Māori representation. In the final proposal they decided against establishing Māori constituencies and instead agreed to work with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to find other ways to continue with the current Māori representation model that they had had. This proposal is directly from Environment Canterbury. It recognises those factors which they took into account when they undertook the representation review, and it brings a model for legislation that my colleague Rino Tirikatene has extensively considered alongside representatives of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury and deemed appropriate to bring to this House for further consideration.

When we got to the Māori Affairs Committee, we did consider that very carefully. Both submitters and officials gave us extensive advice on that. One of those pieces of advice, which was particularly important to the committee and we had a lot of discussion on, was the value that those Ngāi Tahu representatives could bring to the table by virtue of them being mana whenua. As you’ll know, and this House will know, Ngāi Tahu holds rangatiratanga over 80 percent of Te Wai Pounamu, which is the South Island, and that was recognised in 1997 by the Crown. In fulfilling its Treaty obligations, the Crown recognised Ngāi Tahu as tangata whenua and as holding rangatiratanga within the takiwā.

That’s important, because when we think about the unique situation which has led to this local bill, and not a Government response, we have to consider not only the ECan arrangements that existed at the time and through the local government review since 2018 but also the unique arrangements around the iwi representative table. This is a Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu which represents a number of papatipu rūnanga in this area. They have mature governance systems and mature election systems, which the committee discussed at length with submitters, including Ngāi Tahu themselves. We discussed how and why it’s important for Ngāi Tahu representatives to be chosen at large and to represent not only those members but also people within the takiwā who, as mana whenua, hold responsibility for representation around that table, as kaitaki. That is an essential part of the tikanga of Ngāi Tahu, to represent those guests in the area, to represent their interests, to also hold all of the interests of the community at heart, but be representatives that speak truthfully to their whakapapa and to their association with the whenua that has gone on for hundreds of years.

The committee also considered the point that my colleague Matt Doocey brought up around the remuneration and appropriate membership of the committee. This is a broadly technical point, but if you’ll indulge me, let me take you through what the committee considered, because we were—and I think the members from all political stripes around that table will know—open-minded about our inquiry into the membership and the remuneration question. We had an extensive back and forth with the Remuneration Authority and we sought further advice from officials on the remuneration question.

The reason why the committee landed where we did on remuneration was because of the way that clause 6 operates, and in relation to clause 12. So I’ll take you through that, because I’m getting some derisive laughs from the other side. Clause 6 would enable the membership of Environment Canterbury’s governing body to be increased from 14 to 16 members, and this would accommodate the two members appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. I’m still getting some derisive laughs, so I will really labour the technical details.

This would accommodate the two members appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and these members would have the same functions, powers, responsibilities, rights, indemnities, and duties, including voting rights, as elected members of Environment Canterbury. It’s important to note there that they would have the same voting rights. My colleague Tāmati Coffey, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee, in a very impassioned speech, talked about what happens when you have Māori representatives at the council table who do not have those voting rights. They do not have the same kind of remuneration, and they are not treated in the same way that others are around the table. That was not something that the committee was interested in exploring further.

We considered deleting clause 6, too, so that the maximum membership of Environment Canterbury, including the appointed members, would remain at 14. So the effect of that would have been that the same number of members still sat around the ECan table, but two of them would be appointed by Ngāi Tahu. But we chose to retain clause 6 on advice of the officials, but proposed some drafting amendments because we thought that that gave effect to the policy intent that Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu and a number of submitters were trying to achieve, which was to add to the skills around the table and to maintain what has been there since National implemented the policy in 2016.

Now, on the remuneration point, I’ve said that we went back and forth with our advisers and with the submitters on this, and it was really helpful to really drill down into the effect of this. This is in the context of other councils around the country being able to set their remuneration within a band and also to have members around the table who may not represent the same number or have the same sorts of duties as other councils. We look at a particular area in Wairoa where the councillor from Wairoa—because of their geographic location, that council has determined that they are a special community interest group and that they represent a special constituency which could not be represented by other members around the table, but that they represent 70 percent fewer members of that community in comparison to the other councils around the table. These are arrangements which are put in place on a case by case basis, and it’s really important that local authorities are empowered to recognise particular constituencies in this area.

So when we came to the remuneration point, there was really a pretty clear and stark choice between allowing those two members of Ngāi Tahu to be remunerated at the same rate as others around the table, or to create a situation where everyone was remunerated below the recommended rate for members by the Remuneration Authority. So that is why we chose an equitable outcome and I commend this bill, as it is, to the House.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. I’m very pleased to take a call in support of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill on behalf of the Green Party. Can I seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to acknowledge and congratulate Ngāi Tahu kaumātua Tā Tipene O’Regan for being appointed to the Order of New Zealand in last weekend’s Queen’s Birthday and jubilee honours.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Indeed you can.

Thank you. As well as being a pivotal figure in Ngāi Tahu’s settlement with the Crown and the Crown apology to Ngāi Tahu, Tā Tipene has devoted his life to promoting a bicultural nation, and this bill is part of a commitment to biculturalism. It is part of our commitment to implement Te Tiriti o Waitangi properly and it’s part of the genesis of this bill.

Some of the previous speakers have highlighted and asked why Environment Canterbury, in putting this bill forward through its sponsor, Rino Tirikatene, did not undertake comprehensive consultation in the Waitaha Canterbury region. Well, as Environment Canterbury made very clear in its submission, this whole bill was consistent with a long line of previous council decisions. It wasn’t novel for the region, and, as others have noted, of course, the two Tumu Taiao representatives who were operating when Environment Canterbury had appointed commissioners from 2010 to 2019 highlighted just how successful Ngāi Tahu representation on the regional council has been. And, of course, there has been an extensive public consultation process through the Māori Affairs Committee and some 1,600 submissions to the select committee.

I think this bill and the submissions that came in talked about the very practical benefit to Environment Canterbury from having mana whenua representation at the table. It is those mana whenua kaitiaki responsibilities for air, for the whenua, for soils, for fresh water, for the wai, the awa, for the coastal waters that really need to be at the table of the Canterbury Regional Council because it’s got statutory responsibilities under the Resource Management Act for managing all those natural resources.

As the Selwyn District Council highlighted, one of a number of local councils that supported this bill, when you have mana whenua at the table, that means that they help own and create the key planning instruments, like the district plan and so on in this case, and that results in an increased partnership between local rūnanga and the council, not only for the planning process but also for other projects, and it meant that there were no appeals on a plan once it was notified. So it does, through this sheer decision-making process, lead to much stronger planning documents, much stronger decisions by the council, and a shorter more effective decision-making process.

This bill is putting into law the practice that, as Tāmati Coffey noted, the former National Government had put in by providing for the appointment of Tumu Taio representatives alongside the other appointed commissioners when elected councillors were removed from Environment Canterbury in 2010. One of the major benefits of that whole commissioner process—everything else, I object to—was the fact that the relationship with Ngāi Tahu did significantly improve. That’s what I think this bill, and just the practice of having a Tumu Taio around the table, has shown over recent years. But the trouble with the current practice is that at the moment while the Ngāi Tahu representatives are there, they do not have the same decision-making status as elected councillors, and that’s what this bill will do—put them on exactly the same basis as regional councillors. They would be appointed by Ngāi Tahu, and Arena Williams has canvassed the select committee’s careful consideration of the suggestion by some that there be an election within Ngāi Tahu or that there be Māori wards. Ngāi Tahu has a sophisticated process for ensuring that members appointed represent the papatipu rūnanga within the region, and Ngāi Tahu will use its internal processes to decide who should be the two representatives appointed to Ngāi Tahu to represent mana whenua.

There have been various comments about democracy being undermined, and it’s a very limited perspective around democracy. I’d like to refer to the comments of Dr Te Maire Tau in an article in The Spinoff in January. As he said, and I quote, “What opponents really mean by the use of ‘undemocratic’ is a desire that the majority have for the right to impose their narrow world view on the minority (in this case, Māori). This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what democracy means. Political democracy is not simply the right of a powerful majority to do whatever it wants regardless of the effect on anyone else.” Democracy is about protecting the rights and interests of citizens, and that is what this bill is about because it is ensuring that mana whenua have a strong voice at the council, which is fundamentally concerned, in our largest geographic region in Aotearoa, our second most populated region, with those natural resources. Mana whenua need to be at the table making those decisions, otherwise we are not implementing Te Tiriti and otherwise we have the tyranny of the majority.

So this is good bill. I congratulate the Māori Affairs Committee for all the mahi it has done. The changes it has made to the bill look extensive, but they are about drafting it in a clearer way so that it’s easier to read, and I acknowledge the work of parliamentary counsel there and all the submissions that came in, with people expressing their views. The work that has been done has shaped a better bill and it’s one that the Green Party fully supports.

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Tuatahi māku, e tautoko ana ahau i ngā mihi i tēnei ahiahi mai i tōku whanaunga, tōku hoa mahi a Rino Tirikatene ki te Kaunihera ā-Rohe o Waitaha, me te iwi whānui o Ngāi Tahu, nā rāua i tono mai tēnei pire ki roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei ahiahi.

Nō reira, e tū ana ahau ki te mihi ki a rātou, ka whakarahi ake waku kōrero e pā ana ki tērā āianei ake nei, engari e mihi ana ki te kaunihera, ki te iwi o Ngāi Tahu, otirā e mihi ana hoki ki a koe e Rino, ko koe te mema o Te Wai Pounamu i kawe mai i tēnei pire ki roto i Te Whare i tēnei ahiahi, nō reira e mihi ana ki a koe.

He mihi poto hoki ki te Komiti Māori nā rātou i whakarongo ki ngā kōrero maha e pā ana ki tēnei pire me te whakapau kaha ki te whiriwhiri i ngā take e pā ana ki tēnei pire. Nō reira, e mihi ana ki te heamana o tērā komiti, arā ko Tāmati Coffey, me ngā mema katoa i roto i tēnei Whare, nō reira, ka nui te mihi.

Ka huri ahau ki tērā atu o ngā reo.

[Greetings, Madam Speaker. Firstly, I support the acknowledgments made by my relative and colleague Rino Tirikatene, to Environment Canterbury and the wider tribes of Ngāi Tahu, who together requested that this bill be brought to the House this afternoon.

Therefore, I stand to acknowledge them, and I will expand what I have to say about that very soon, but for now I acknowledge the council and Ngāi Tahu, and also you, Rino, who, as the member for the South Island, has carried this bill into the House this afternoon, so thank you.

A short acknowledgment too to the Māori Affairs Committee who listened to the many submissions about this bill, and who have given their all discussing the issues relating to this bill. And I acknowledge the chair of that committee, Tāmati Coffey, and all the members in this House; greetings.

I shall now turn to the other language.]

I just wanted to take a short moment to make a few acknowledgments—firstly to the Canterbury Regional Council and to Ngāi Tahu for bringing forward a local proposal and a local solution that they think will benefit their region based on their experience, and I will elaborate on that in my contribution. But I want to acknowledge them because this is not the first time that they have tried to do that.

I also want to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill, the local MP for Te Wai Pounamu, Rino Tirikatene. I also just wanted to briefly acknowledge the Māori Affairs Committee. I am not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, although I think I did sit on some of the stages of this bill going through the select committee process. I, however, was not there for any submissions; it was more around officials’ advice and the finalising of the report. So I do not profess to stand here this afternoon in the House and say that I have been intimately involved in the process of this bill going through the select committee process. But I have read the select committee’s report and I have read the submissions of Environment Canterbury (ECan) and also of Ngāi Tahu, and I will refer to those in my contributions this afternoon.

For somebody who is therefore brand new to this issue, it was helpful for me to understand the background. I am also not from Te Wai Pounamu, from Ngāi Tahu, or even that familiar with Canterbury. So it was helpful for me to understand the whakapapa of this issue. So when I was reading through the whakapapa of this bill, I understood that circumstances arose in 2010 and there was a bill at the time that was intended to have direct representation of Ngāi Tahu on Environment Canterbury, and that that would be done by the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Local Government, appointed commissioners who collectively had knowledge of and experience, expertise, and a number of matters, including, relevantly, tikanga Māori as it applied in the Canterbury region.

However, that Act was repealed in 2016 and replaced with the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act 2016. Under section 12(2) of that Act, two of the three members appointed by the responsible Ministers were appointed on the recommendations of Ngāi Tahu. And, as it has been pointed out in the debates this afternoon in the House, this legislation was brought into force by the previous National Government. So I do find it interesting that something that they once supported, they now oppose.

Now, one of the things that I found interesting when I was reading the proposal from Environment Canterbury was that they had the benefit of more than nine years of that being in operation, and they said that they saw that the practical benefits of having mana whenua representation in Canterbury were rapidly and widely recognised. This recognition remained during the nine years for which that special legislation was in place. Those benefits include greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, reduced costs for the council and consent applicants, and improved enforcement decisions. So I can’t understand why the other side of the House would be opposed to something that is providing, once again, greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, reduced costs for the council and consent applicants, and improved enforcement decisions. Instead they are fixated on race-based arguments for why they oppose, instead of looking at the benefits that this has brought through proven experience in the nine years that it operated.

In 2018, Environment Waikato promoted a local bill to retain the right for Ngāi Tahu to appoint two members at the 2019 and subsequent local body elections. However, unfortunately, it was defeated, but here we are today able to reconsider that. Since 2020, Environment Waikato has continued to have two Tumu Taeo appointed by the Ngāi Tahu papatipu rūnanga chairs of the Canterbury region to assist with council decision-making. They sit at the table and they make valuable contributions, but they do not have voting rights. So it once was fine for them to have voting rights, and then it wasn’t fine, but we’ll still have their contribution because it’s really valuable and we recognise that. But what I’m hearing from the other side is it’s very valuable but we don’t want to give you any voting rights.

So I’m standing here saying that this is being promoted by the regional council, by the mana whenua, by the iwi, together—both of them saying that this is something that works for their community and they would like this House to consider implementing it in legislation so they can continue that. I haven’t heard any good reasons as to why we would go against something that has been promoted locally with the support locally for the solution.

Now, one of the things that has come up in the debate this afternoon is: well, why not Māori constituencies? I think that that’s been a really interesting issue to consider. I’m very proud of the work that this Government did to even the playing field to remove the discriminatory provisions that allowed for polls to overturn when councils and communities said that they wanted to have Māori representation through wards and constituencies, which doesn’t apply to any of the other seats on council. So we’ve made that available, but the important distinction is many councils will be using it at these upcoming local body elections in October.

💬 Simon Court: Why not ECan?

Now, why not ECan? That’s a really good question. So they went through a representation review. They considered all of the options available to them, and through that representation review, they actually considered that this option suited them better. They had nine years of proven experience for it. They believe that they are able to accommodate for mana whenua. And, as we heard explained by Tāmati Coffey and other members on the Māori Affairs Committee, one of the issues with Māori wards and constituencies is that those that get to participate in the election of people into those seats are all Māori on the roll in that particular area. So that does not recognise the status of mana whenua—

💬 Simon Court: So half of them are disenfranchised; is that what you’re saying?

—of Te Tiriti partners. I just encourage the member over there to understand the difference between mana whenua and Māori at large.

💬 Simon Court: I do.

And what this bill—do you? OK, interesting; I look forward to your contribution on that and you informing me what your understanding is, because if you did understand that, then you would support the argument put forward by Environment Canterbury, put forward by Ngāi Tahu. They’re saying that that option is there if they would like to use it in the future, but they actually believe that this one would provide better for them; they just need the legislation to be changed to allow them to do that.

So that’s what we are doing here this afternoon. I enjoyed reading that and listening to the discussion and the debate around how to accommodate for mana whenua interests in what are really important functions and roles within their rohe, which is also recognised in their Treaty settlement. Do you also not support that as well? Because that is what the settlement said that they would like to achieve. They said how they would do that through the Department of Conservation. This is just a natural extension of that into local government, which is responsible for the management of natural resources in their rohe. They are acknowledged as the only mana whenua there.

So to me it is very straightforward. I am very proud to commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, ACT opposes this bill because it conflicts with the ACT principle that only democratically-elected representatives should vote in councils and in Parliament. I’ll be clear: ACT opposes it because ACT believes that only democratically-elected representatives should vote in councils and in Parliament.

Now, this bill would give Ngāi Tahu two unelected members on Environment Canterbury, and therefore would give those two members decision making over many people whose livelihoods and businesses depend on access to fresh water and to building things on their land. Labour MPs, and the member who sponsored the bill, Rino Tirikatene, claim this bill addresses Crown obligations to Ngāi Tahu under the Treaty of Waitangi. Well, I say that’s nonsense, because the place for that is in the Waitangi Tribunal where any breaches of the Treaty are determined. Once a Treaty decision is published by the tribunal, if that then requires legislation that legislation is brought to the House. This legislation does not come from a Waitangi Tribunal decision, therefore your argument is nonsense.

Secondly, the New Zealand Parliament passed the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act in 1998; it recorded an apology from the Crown into settled claims made under the Treaty of Waitangi. Now there is a further claim by Ngāi Tahu relating to fresh water, which is currently before the Waitangi Tribunal. It’s still unresolved—it may well be that the tribunal finds in favour of Ngāi Tahu, which grants them some rights over water, or it may go against the applicant. But we don’t know, because it’s still before the Waitangi Tribunal. But in the meantime, if this bill passes, unelected Ngāi Tahu representatives will have the decision making over how water is allocated to farmers and businesses and who is allowed to build what in Canterbury. Now, that seems presumptive at best—pernicious and subversive at worst. But, look, I would assume, having seen how this Labour Government operates in the last 18 months, that attempting to drive this bill through is more likely simply another example of bullish incompetence.

So what does Ngāi Tahu do? Who are they? They are a successful commercial organisation with a strong community focus, and the people who I’ve met who represent Ngāi Tahu are some of the most competent, professional, and community-focused people that I’ve met in business in New Zealand. They’ve grown from a $170 million Treaty settlement in 1998 to a $600 million business today. They exist primarily for the benefit of around 25,000 trustees, of whom 18,700 live in Canterbury. Their investments in property amount to about $550 million, they own a seafood company, they own a hundred thousand hectares of forestry, they own the Shotover Jet and even the Huka jet at Lake Taupō in the North Island, and of course Whale Watch Kaikoura, and I could go on and on and on. They’re a very, very successful New Zealand organisation, primarily focused on returning benefits to members in their community, and that is laudable. But they’re also an example of how to turn a Treaty settlement—an amount of money and some assets which the Crown gave to Ngāi Tahu in recognition of wrongs, of a breach of contract under the Treaty of Waitangi. So they’re actually an example about how good things could be if you take a positive attitude and you focus on your people, and I think that’s to be lauded.

But none of their success to date has relied on co-governance or getting preferential treatment, and I’m assuming that the leadership of an organisation as successful, and having the mana of, as Ngāi Tahu would bristle at the suggestion that their success is due to special treatment. I think they would reject that. I can’t speak for them, but I’ve met some of them and I think they would say “We did it on our own, based on our own efforts. We didn’t need this kind of support.” That’s why it’s so hard to understand the motivations of the member Rino Tirikatene and his Labour Party colleagues in bringing this bill to the House. It’s another example of Labour MPs and the Labour Government failing to understand what good governance and democracy entails. That is, being able to elect the people who have decision making over your property rights and over our collective national resources that we all have a common interest in—to be able to elect people who make decisions about those things.

So, look, for context: a highly dysfunctional Environment Canterbury was disbanded and replaced under the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act in 2016, and at the time the ACT Party supported that two members of Ngāi Tahu would be appointed on their recommendation until full democracy could be restored. But democracy has been restored; in fact, in 2019 the people of Canterbury were able to directly elect representatives to Environment Canterbury, to the regional council. But that did not mean an end to the voice of Ngāi Tahu at the council table—in fact, they currently have two mana whenua experts who advise council on matters which are important to mana whenua, but those two people do not have the power to vote on council business. Now, that does appear to be a better way to ensure that iwi Māori voices are heard without tinkering with or overriding basic democratic principles—that is, one person, one vote. And I can confirm that in my experience as an engineer working in local government, I often presented to mana whenua forums to seek their feedback about engineering proposals, about proposals to close and remediate old landfills, and about things that were important to them as mana whenua and which they felt they should have a say in the design and implementation of engineering-based solutions. And that is absolutely fair enough.

If we just come to the proportionality of suffrage—this is a really important point. We understand that about 18,700 members of Ngāi Tahu live in Canterbury, of the 36,000 Māori New Zealanders which Stats New Zealand indicate live in Canterbury. So about half of the Māori New Zealanders who live in Canterbury are Ngāi Tahu, and this piece of legislation would benefit only those 18,700. However they have voting rights already—it’s not required because they don’t have voting rights. They can already vote in local government and general elections, or potentially on the Māori roll in an election. Yet the 563,000 people who live in Canterbury who this legislation doesn’t cover, they will have 14 representatives—about one per 40,000—whereas the Ngāi Tahu representatives appointed, they will represent about 9,000 each. So the democratically-elected representatives will only have one-quarter of the representation of those that Ngāi Tahu represents. So, look, this is going to result in unelected members having much greater voting powers compared to democratically-elected members. It’s a completely unacceptable act to Cantabrians and to most New Zealanders.

So, look, why might they need representation—the regional council? The member Rino Tirikatene has stated there are great benefits to having people with a special relationship with the land making decisions about land and water use. He gives no examples about how Ngāi Tahu representatives have in fact contributed to better decision-making around land and water simply by virtue of their genealogy. That’s frankly patronising and insulting to the tens of thousands of land and water and engineering and science professionals who make decisions for the benefit of our community about land and water every day. It’s patronising and it’s insulting to the farmers, to the foresters, to the engineers, the miners, and the scientists responsible for protecting and enhancing our environment. There is no one in my engineering class who could possibly have assumed that because of who their grandfather or their great-grandfather was, they would know more or less about the environment. None of us would have assumed that, because it’s simply not true. Good environmental practitioners study science and engineering, and they hold themselves and each other to high standards. Race and ethnicity do not come into it.

Now, New Zealanders who came here by waka, by sailing or steamship, or more recently by plane, came here to get away from a futile and a caste-based system; from hierarchies based on birth, whether it was the colour of your skin, your race, your religion, or any other means other than a democratically-elected system of Government—one person, one vote. The Treaty of Waitangi gave New Zealanders equal rights. It protected our property, and if there was anyone who breached our rights we could go to court and have that resolved. That’s available to all New Zealanders. The ACT Party believes that was the intention of Māori and representatives of the Crown. We reject the need for this bill, and, as part of a future Government, ACT will repeal this legislation.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. He uri ahau nō tawhiti, ka mihi ahau ki tēnei whenua me ōna uri. Ko Sarah Pallett tēnei e mihi ana ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[My origins are in distant lands, but I pay tribute to this land and its descendants. My name is Sarah Pallett and I offer my greetings to you, my greetings to you all.]

I am a citizen of Aotearoa New Zealand, but this is not my tūrangawaewae; this is not my standing place. My standing place is almost exactly at the antipode of where we stand today: straight through the globe. But in recognising that this is not my tūrangawaewae, I recognise, too, the importance of taking my affirmation of allegiance as a citizen in te reo Māori. I also took my affirmation in te reo Māori here in this House.

Because this is not my tūrangawaewae, I’ve gone to some trouble to understand Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but I am absolutely not an expert. I’ll tell you who is an expert, though: the MP for Te Tai Tonga, Rino Tirikatene—not “Reno” Tirikatene. Rino Tirikatene is an expert in the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi; Tāmati Coffey, the chair of the Māori Affairs Committee is an expert; Paul Eagle, Arena Williams, Shanan Halbert—they are experts in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But I digress slightly.

Talking to the bill, this is a local bill. It’s not a member’s bill, but it was introduced to the House by the member for Te Tai Tonga, and for that I’m very grateful. This provides a local solution for a local issue. This bill would have the effect of continuing mana whenua’s representation on the Canterbury Regional Council, Environment Canterbury—or ECan—in the form of two Ngāi Tahu councillors from the 2019 local body elections. This was an arrangement that was first put in place by the National Government in 2010.

As Environment Canterbury themselves say, this “Bill is intended to reinstate direct Ngāi Tahu representation … Under … Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010, the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Local Government”—and you’ll forgive me for reading this directly, but it’s quite complicated—“appointed commissioners who collectively had knowledge of and expertise in a number of matters, including … tikanga Māori as it applied in the region. … The practical benefits of mana whenua representation in Canterbury were rapidly and widely recognised, and this recognition remained [for] the nine years [that] that special legislation was in place.”

We heard Willow-Jean Prime speak earlier of the benefits, which included greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, reduced costs for the council, reduced costs for consent applicants, improved enforcement decisions, and, in addition, Ngāi Tahu participation on council played a pivotal role in building the social capital and community ownership of solutions that underpin water and land management in Canterbury.

“Since 2020, Environment Canterbury has had two Tumu Taiao appointed by the Ngāi Tahu Papatipu Rūnanga Chairs of the Canterbury Region, to assist with Council decision-making. They sit at the Council table and make valuable contributions, but they do not have voting rights.”—they have a seat at the table but they can’t eat. This bill is seeking to address that.

Environment Canterbury, we’ve heard, is responsible for environmental outcomes, but also social, economic, cultural, and environmental outcomes in the 45 square kilometres from Kaikōura to Waitaki, inland all the way to the Southern Alps. As we’ve heard before, Ngāi Tahu are the original people and kaitiaki of that area. They’re not just a business.

There is a lot of support locally for this bill. There is support from Hurunui District Council. There is support from Selwyn District Council. There is support from Christchurch City Council, who said in an earlier letter, in July 2021, that they supported the previous proposed legislation for mana whenua representation, and—their submission was the following: that “Mana whenua representation on Environment Canterbury provides real value and strengthens the strategic partnerships in Canterbury. The Council strongly supports the proposed legislative approach to ensure a representation model that ensures mana whenua representation.” Although that was from an earlier submission, they have said in this letter, dated July 2021—the Hon Lianne Dalziel, Mayor of Christchurch, said, “I shared your letter and the new draft bill with Councillor colleagues … can confirm … we support the new draft local bill and have no further feedback.”

But it’s fair to say that concerns have been raised—it’s fair to say that concerns have been raised. Concerns are occasionally raised about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance. So I’d like to refer the House to the Attorney-General’s legal advice that was submitted to the select committee. I’ll sum it up. It says, “We have concluded that the Bill appears to be consistent with [that] Act.” I summed it up, but I’m going to go into a little bit more detail, because of the submitters seem to require it. As they said, “Section 19(1) of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds set out in the Human Rights Act 1993 … The key questions in assessing whether there’s a limit to the right of freedom from discrimination are: … does the legislation draw a distinction on one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination under s21 of the Human Rights Act 1993; and if so, … does the distinction involve disadvantage to one or more classes of individuals?” They go on to say—I’m skipping a couple of paragraphs because I’m sure you don’t want me to read the whole thing—that “The Bill … confers rights on Māori that are not conferred on other people, by providing Ngāi Tahu with non-elected representatives on the Council, in addition to their vote for elected members. The Bill could therefore be seen to draw distinctions on the basis of rights or ethnic origin.” But the important part is in the next paragraph, because it goes as follows: “Notwithstanding this, the extent to which the distinctions reflect the status of Māori as … Crown’s Treaty partner, and the Crown’s duties under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we do not consider any other groups in a comparable position. The Treaty of Waitangi settlement agreed between Ngāi Tahu and the Crown in November 1997 acknowledged the rangatiratanga and mana of Ngāi Tahu over their lands … and affirmed their special association with the natural environment in a number of areas.”

This is where I would return you to—Madam Speaker, I would return the House; not you, Madam Speaker—to the concept of kaitiaki, which is a really important concept to absorb, especially as an immigrant, as I am myself.

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment from the Attorney-General does conclude that in the context of the provisions within this bill, no other person or groups can be considered to be in comparable circumstances to Ngāi Tahu, and no person or groups will be materially disadvantaged by the passing of the bill. The result of this assessment is that section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is not engaged, and the bill appears to be consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Now, it’s important, when we reflect on the legal advice from the Attorney-General that the Attorney-General does not always find in our favour, and I think that it really does his reputation as an independent assessor—and one that we would uphold strongly, because we don’t always have agreement from the Attorney-General with this Government’s position.

But in summation, this bill is not about special privileges for Ngāi Tahu; it’s about recognising the responsibility that Ngāi Tahu as kaitiaki of the air, land, waters, and coast of the region, and enabling them to perform that duty. I commend it to the House.

I call Joseph Mooney—five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise as the member for Southland to speak on this bill. The National Party opposes the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill.

The proposed legislation provides mana whenua representation on the Canterbury Regional Council, while giving Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu the right to appoint up to two members of the council in addition to elected members and to ensure that, once appointed, those members have the same status as elected members for all purposes. The National Party opposes this legislation because the proposed provisions are undemocratic. The proposed two additional members of the council would be appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu rather than being elected by the public, of whom Ngāi Tahu are members.

It is a longstanding principle in Western democracies that where taxes or rates are levied, there should be a mechanism for those who pay to exercise control through voting. The provisions in this bill provide for the potential for Māori wards to also be introduced in Canterbury, including the potential for more appointed positions and the provisions in this bill also provides for less effective mana whenua representation in the current Tumu Taiao who advise the council.

This bill weakens Canterbury’s local democracy by creating a workaround of the democratic norm that community representatives legitimately exercise public power on the basis of being elected to make decisions on behalf of their communities. Accordingly, the addition of two additional councillors who are not elected would dilute the Canterbury region’s democratic representation by investing those two unelected appointees with the same voting rights and powers as elected members. Such an arrangement will weaken the council’s accountability to Cantabrians.

I note that the long history of New Zealand—New Zealand’s a young country, but we’re one of the oldest democracies. Originally, the voting rights were based on the possession of property in this country. However, Māori men were granted universal suffrage in 1867 with four electorates for Māori—three in the North Islands and one in the South Island—because only a small number of Māori owned individual freehold land at that time, and many Māori could not vote.

So Māori men were actually given the universal suffrage in this country before all other men who did not own land. Universal male suffrage was introduced 12 years later for all men on 12 December 1879, and that gave them the right to vote whether or not they owned property. It was 19 September 1893 that New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world in which women had the right to vote in parliamentary elections. So that’s 129 years of history in this country of universal suffrage, giving everyone in this country an equal right to vote in elections. This bill undermines that principle of 129 years of electoral universal suffrage in this country giving all adults—male and female—the same right to vote for those who exercise power and control over their lives.

This bill, also, in my view, is irreconcilable with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was proclaimed in 1948, and Article 21 says, “Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in their country.” It also says, “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of Government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” Again, this bill undermines that Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which makes it clear that there should be universal and equal suffrage for all voters in this country.

I note Ngāi Tahu are a fantastic iwi who have done incredible things since 1998 when they were given a settlement of $170 million—the Treaty settlement. They have grown that to an asset base that now stands at about $1.2 billion. Over $320 million has been distributed to support tribal programmes. Ngāi Tahu annually contribute over $200 million to the South Island economy through job creation, through purchasing, and spending profits locally. So National, and myself, strongly acknowledge Ngāi Tahu as an important, well organised tribe who are essential to the South Island’s future prosperity and resilience. Based on these strengths, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are well positioned to present and support credible, competent candidates that run for local or regional office who can succeed without reliance on preferential legislation.

We very much support Ngāi Tahu; we do not support this bill.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare, and it’s a privilege to talk on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. Can I say a big thanks to Tāmati Coffey and the Māori Affairs Committee, where the former speaker and myself sit on that committee. We went through this process thoroughly in terms of getting this bill to the House. I wanted just to focus on three things this evening, and one is just a reflection on what’s happening now in terms of their representation on there. Really, what we’ve heard today, and what the feedback will show you in black and white, is it’s a reflection of what is happening now anyway. It’s been through a very thorough process to say that this is the model that we want, and I’m a real fan of that, because all communities are different throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. What works, for example, on the Chatham Islands is obviously not going to work in Waitaha, in Canterbury, or in Tāmaki-makau-rau—Auckland. So you’ve got a whole range of mechanisms where democracy and how that works will take place, and what I like most is this is a local solution, where the locals have done something where they think it works locally, and therefore it is good.

One of the issues, though, I find is we get really hot and heated under the collar about these people being democratically elected, but I always find the same hot and heatedness doesn’t apply to council-controlled organisations. These are organisations that are meant to be 100 percent owned by the cities or districts. They are loaded with undemocratically elected people—every single one of them, in fact—and no one says boo. Yes, there’s a process—there is—but are they democratically elected to run a council service? No. Not a word is said. There is a process. Democratically elected? No.

I’m just saying: council-controlled organisations across New Zealand with not one single democratically elected person on there, unless they are appointed as a councillor on to that board, and that is different from council to council, and organisation to organisation. Christchurch City, through the holdings company Christchurch City Holdings Ltd, Orion—but who knows? I mean, I don’t know who is elected on there. But this is right—no one can tell me. No one could even tell me who the board chair was or who the board members are on Orion, Citycare, the Christchurch Airport Co. Ltd. Who are they? I have no idea.

But my point is, as I’m not questioning the intelligence, the skills, and the contribution that each of those people bring—far from it. It’s just that key point about them—[Members interject]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jacqui Dean): Order! Order! Let’s just—the member Paul Eagle.

It gets a lot of heat there, Madam Speaker. But the key point here is just that it’s not the quality of the individuals or even of who they are politically—unlike some of my colleagues here—but it’s all to the point that the democracy element is simply not there.

So that’s what I’m just trying to compare this to say that, hey look, we have these entities. Yep, they’re slightly different, and they all are because they provide a whole range of different services. But that key notion—you see, back in the old days, some of these entities would have just been purely in-house and run by the cities and districts, and no problem. Some of these things would not even have been talked about. But what I find interesting now is that the minute we look at some of this in a wider context about being democratically elected, that does not apply right across the board. So I guess it’s just apples and oranges and bananas and pears—who knows?

But what I do know is that it is what Environment Canterbury, the Canterbury Regional Council, want. They have talked with their Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu partner and said, “Look, in terms of acknowledging the rights of mana whenua within their region, being a fundamental feature of Māori law, and being the political representative, that’s what they want.”

So, in terms of a local solution reflecting what is happening now, and being fully supported—and we’ve heard about some of the mayors within the region who have been supportive—then it just makes sense to me. I commend the bill to the House.

In many ways the speech just given by the previous speaker, Paul Eagle, points to the ridiculous nature of this particular bill. He spoke about council-controlled organisations being stacked full of appointees. Well, many of those appointees in actual fact are—all of them, I would say—appointed because they have some degree of expertise. It’s quite interesting that he points out CCL, which is well chaired by Mr Barry Bragg, who happens also to be Ngāi Tahu but is primarily appointed because he is a very capable individual. I’m sure that when that previous speaker advances his own intentions with regards to local government in the next few months, he will equally be successful and nothing to do with the fact that he is Māori.

So let me just straighten up a few things. We heard from Tāmati Coffey this glowing sort of condemnation of the National Party position, because we apparently are backtracking on the previous position where there was one commissioner appointed to Environment Canterbury (ECan) at the time that ECan was sacked and replaced by commissioners. Now, looking at that situation, there had been 20 years where the ECan had failed totally to look after the water resource in Canterbury. Massively over-allocated. No real information about what its recharge capability was. It needed to have people with considerable expertise. As it happens, Anake Goodall, who was a Ngāi Tahu representative on that commission, had that expertise quite brilliantly and he was chosen as a result of that. And I think given that the democracy had been taken away from people who would normally vote on that council, it was only appropriate to have commissioners that represented the widest interests of the community possible. So that was the reason for the inclusion of Ngāi Tahu.

I’ve got to say, too, that post the earthquakes in Christchurch, Ngāi Tahu were a very, very influential part of the recovery, and included in all of that. But once again, because that work was being done largely by a Government department, it needed to have the sort of input that was required from the widest part of the community. How the widest part of the community is represented on a body like ECan is through the triannual elections. I don’t see what the problem is for Ngāi Tahu to put up their own candidates, openly saying that they’re standing on that ticket. What would be wrong with that? Why is that so hard? Because I can tell you that the public view of Ngāi Tahu in Canterbury is very, very positive—very positive. They are an organisation that contribute significantly to the wellbeing of the entire Te Wai Pounamu, and particularly in the Ōtautahi community. I’m using those words almost with a degree of reluctance because I do remember being criticised very heavily by a recently appointed Knight of the Realm for using inappropriate vowels in a couple of sentences that I uttered at that time. You know, I suppose through that I do understand to some extent the term “grievance”.

But let me also look at, for a moment, the issues around what the Labour Party are calling co-governance—we would call co-management. So in the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Bill there were a number of coastal areas that were set aside for exclusive use during different times of the year for Ngāi Tahu. There has never been an issue around any of that. There were a few skirmishes initially at a place called Kaiapoi, which is Saltwater Creek, but it settled very, very quickly. And the recognition was of the customary rights that Ngāi Tahu had in that area and many others throughout the South Island.

We also have, post that period, a number of tai-ā-pure that have been set up around the coastline and they are very much the local fishing interests, the local community, and Ngāi Tahu are involved in that as well, and they have been enormously successful. We did have an arrangement around the Whanganui River and that has been successful. And then also in the Ureweras; very successful. And the reason for that is because it is a management of a specific location, specific area, with a very specific purpose. ECan has a very broad purpose, a huge purpose, and much of it affects commercial activity that takes place on the Canterbury Plains and into South Canterbury, right up into North Canterbury as well, up to the Alps. So a very, very broad mandate that they have. And the question that sits in my head is: why would we say that this particular part of the community has a much greater interest in the environmental outcomes for that area? If it’s just on the basis of principle, which says, “Well, the Treaty demands it.”, then show us how that demand is being represented by this Government—because it’s not. The Government has run a mile from this bill and allowed it to go through as a private bill. They’ll go round and tell people quietly who aren’t happy with it—and there were 1,600 submitters who weren’t happy with it—“Oh, look, we had no choice. It was what they wanted; we had to give it to them.” They, of course, being ECan itself.

So I think there’s just bad process here as much as anything else. I have a huge respect for Ngāi Tahu, for the engagement that I’ve had with them over a number of years. It’s not day to day, it’s not week to week, it’s not month to month, but it is certainly there—on a needs basis—and recognising they’re an independent organisation that, post their Treaty settlement, have not relied on the Government for anything. I think in some ways this devalues their position in our community and I don’t like that either.

Over the weekend there was the announcement that Sir Tipene O’Regan was to be elevated to the Order of New Zealand. That is a most appropriate honour—one of the more appropriate honours that I’ve seen in my time in this House. I think—well, he may well support this bill; I don’t know what his views are. What he does support is a very independent, a very strong, and a very contributing Ngāi Tahu, focused on the wellbeing of their people. I think this takes a little bit away from that. And I think the question I go back to, the point I go back to is: why don’t Ngāi Tahu sign up to a candidacy, or more, for ECan seats? I can’t see what the problem is, other than—just like everybody else in the community—Ngāi Tahu have different political views, different political opinions, and different political allegiances to any particular candidates who may or may not stand. And that, I think, further devalues the concept of saying, “Well, just the leadership of Ngāi Tahu can decide who these two new councillors are.”

So this is not, in my opinion, good legislation. If it was a Government bill, then it would be the sort of thing that you would have the whole system of Government working on. There would be a consideration of the Tāmati Coffey position, which is that this is precedent setting, it’s just the beginning, and there’s a whole lot more to come. The legislation that would flow from it would probably be schedule-based to enable such a thing. We probably wouldn’t vote for that either. But the point is this Government won’t do it either. So the question becomes should we support legislation that is almost hobby horse in its construction. Or should we take the appropriate ground, as Paul Goldsmith so eloquently put it before and say, “Look, in a democracy”—and Paul Eagle made the same point, in actual fact—“an elected body can make any appointments it wants.” It can delegate certain responsibilities to those bodies. So in that case, why would we start to weaken the supremacy of the elected body? And that is what this bill sets out to do and is the reason why we are not supporting it.

Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute today, when we talk about the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. To start with, I really do want to acknowledge the member who’s shepherding this bill through, Rino Tirikatene, the member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga and a very proud member of Parliament for Te Tai Tonga as well.

Before I go on, I, like others, would also like to acknowledge the New Zealander of the year, Tā Tipene O’Regan o Ngāi Tahu, after receiving, as Mr Brownlee just said, New Zealand’s highest order, our country’s most royal sort of accolade, by being named as a member of the Order of New Zealand in the recent Queen’s Birthday Honours List. It is, as Mr Brownlee said, incredibly fitting and very well deserved.

The bill that we’ve got before us today is a pretty simple bill, and I don’t want to make that sound as if I’m being simplistic about it, because it’s clearly engendered a lot of emotion today. But the bill essentially allows Ngāi Tahu to appoint up to two members to its council. It’s what happens now, it’s what works well now, and it’s what Environment Canterbury (ECan) would like to continue to do. It seeks to reinstate mana whenua representation on the council and it reflects, I think, ECan’s ongoing and commendable commitment to securing that permanent Ngāi Tahu representation.

I just want to pick up on a couple of points that have been made. Joseph Mooney mentioned, and Mr Brownlee also continued the conversation along the lines, that Ngāi Tahu are well positioned and well placed to field very competent candidates. And I think the inference was that they were well placed to run very well-resourced campaigns, and both of those things are true. In fact, there are many Ngāi Tahu candidates elected in local body elections in the region who do a fantastic job. But that’s not the point. Whilst they may be mana whenua, this bill here is seeking a permanent recognition of mana whenua representation on that board. So it’s not just about that.

It’s a unique bill, in so far as it’s a local bill—it doesn’t happen that frequently. The Canterbury Regional Council, colloquially known as ECan, requested that Rino Tirikatene take this bill to Parliament, and that he has done. They did so, so that they can promote a legislative change at a local level. So in that sense, it’s a bespoke arrangement. And I’d like to quote my colleague Rino Tirikatene when he said, “This is a unique situation where you have a single iwi which has already appointed councillors and it’s just seeking to reinstate that arrangement for a single geographic area.” ECan is not urging that this model be adopted by others, and I think that that’s really important to note, but it does ask this House that it be allowed to have a system that it believes is the right system for Canterbury. And as we’ve heard from others earlier on, my colleague Willow-Jean Prime talked about the fact that there was an extensive and substantive representation review and they went through a process where they looked at options and they decided what was best for them. They considered the fact that they’d had nine years of benefit with something that was working really well, and this is what they want.

Willow-Jean Prime also mentioned the fact that when someone asked, “Why not just opt for Māori Wards or constituencies?” It doesn’t work like that for everyone. This is about mana whenua and not specifically about all Māori. So when we talk about ECan in terms of what their goals are and what their aspirations are for the way that they operate, I think there’s a couple of other things that we really need to bear in mind as well. The council only has one iwi with mana whenua throughout its region, and for this reason, the council prefers a direct appointment, as their reflection of Ngaī Tahu as mana whenua. It’s also not about special privileges. And I find some of the contributions that have alleged special privilege, or used the concept of special privilege, and have really almost crossed that line to be quite discomforting. Ngāi Tahu appointees do not come at the expense of elected members, and that’s really clear.

The bill, as recommended by the select committee, would expand the total membership of ECan to 16 representatives, so essentially an increase from the 14 who currently sit on council to 16. It’s making room for that relationship. I think the bill is not about special privileges for Ngāi Tahu, and if we cast our minds back to several contributions ago, we heard what can only be described as quite a simplistic and condescending explanation, a sort of ACT-splanation, so to speak, about Ngāi Tahu focusing on Ngāi Tahu as an organisation and not acknowledging Ngāi Tahu as a people.

So this bill was not about special privileges. This bill is about recognising the responsibility that Ngāi Tahu has as kaitiaki of the air, as kaitiaki of waters, as kaitiaki of the land and the coast of the region—a particularly special region and unique region as well—and enabling them to perform what is their duty. That responsibility lies with Ngāi Tahu directly, and not Māori generally. Crown Law has advised that the bill does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, as my colleague Sarah Pallett talked about. To quote “the extent to which the distinctions [on the basis of race or ethnic origins] reflect the status of Māori as the Crown’s Treaty partner, and the Crown’s duties under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we do not consider any other group is in a comparable position.”

And also, when we think about it—I wasn’t able to listen to all of the earlier contributions, I was elsewhere. But out of the corner of my eye—and quite discreetly, I should hope—I was looking on my cell phone to see where we were up to, and the auto cue was accompanying and making up for the lack of sound. And quite frequently, again, out of the corner of my eye, all I could see from the Opposition was the word “democracy”, “democracy”, and “democracy” being sort of bandied about. My first thought was, “Oh, the irony of that”—particularly in this area, particularly when we’re literally debating the Canterbury Regional Council, and everything that that went through, and the precedent set by National. The irony of the Opposition to date.

And again, my colleague Rino Tirikatene, I’d like to quote him again: “This arrangement of Ngāi Tahu councillors was first put in place by the National Government in 2010, when it installed commissioners on the council.” And don’t we all remember that? What we do know since the 2010 arrangement was, and we’ve heard several people mention this—not just today, but certainly, as I understand, through the submission process—was that a significant amount of details were provided about everything that was achieved during that time, with a proper mana whenua voice being involved in ECan’s decision making, and from which the region has benefited. Again, members opposite, happy to take the benefit, not so happy to contribute to ensuring that that benefit exists. It also benefits ratepayers, hence their wish for this body to continue.

I also note that the Hon Eugenie Sage, along the same lines, mentioned it’s somewhat ironic that we have a National Party opposing this bill and talking about democracy because, of course, it was the National Party that got rid of the 14 elected councillors on Environment Canterbury in 2010 and did not return democracy to Canterbury for nine long years. I think it’s been quite interesting listening to the Opposition’s opposition to this bill. I know they’re just doing their job, but it’s somewhat out of step with some of the other bodies in the area. And I certainly note that the Selwyn District Council strongly supported this bill in the select committee submission. The Selwyn District Council specifically said that it existed during the transitional Government’s governance arrangement periods from 2010 until 2019, and it commended the Canterbury Regional Council and Ngāi Tahu on the commitment, the actual commitment to work together for the benefit of the region. And further, I note that Mayor Sam Broughton—a very good mayor—said “My experience has been that complex issues are dealt with best when all parties are in the room and [all parties] are involved from the start.”

To finish off, I’d just like to commend the Māori Affairs Committee, ably chaired by Tāmati Coffey, and all of the people that participated during this process. I’d also like to acknowledge my friend Jo McLean, wahine o Ngāi Tahu, for her guidance and her wisdom and for always talking open heartedly about all of the issues that face us. Thank you.