Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill

Members, the House is in committee on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. I remind members—and I’ll do this because there are some off-site callers—that they’re able to participate remotely. If you’re on Zoom and want to take a call, please type “Call” into the chat. You should also use the chat if you want to raise a point of order. If we receive new tabled amendments, I will advise members so they can refresh the House papers page to see the new amendment. Finally, it would be helpful for members to ask multiple questions if they have them of the member in charge of the bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Mānawatia a Matariki. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I’m delighted to speak as the member in charge of this bill at its committee stage, Te Pire Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha. (Whakakanohitanga o Ngāi Tahu), the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. This bill is a local bill. It has been brought to this House and promoted by Environment Canterbury, the regional council for the vast areas of lands from north of Kaikōura, all the way south to the Waitaki River. It is the largest geographic area of any regional council in Aotearoa and it encompasses a population second only to Auckland, a population of some 600,000 citizens.

This is a local bill. It has the wide support of the communities at large in the Canterbury regional district because this bill hasn’t just come along in the last five minutes. This bill is about reinstating Ngāi Tahu representation to Environment Canterbury. It is an arrangement that was put in place and it evolved over time. It started in 2010 when commissioners were appointed over the Canterbury region. Through that arrangement, it evolved to where, in 2016 when a transitional council was in place, the legislation which gave effect to that arrangement included the appointment by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to two representatives on Environment Canterbury. The National Party supported that arrangement—those provisions. It had broad support. I encourage National to actually put their support behind this bill once again, put their support behind the people of Canterbury and the Canterbury Regional Council with the reinstatement of Ngāi Tahu representation.

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is not just any other group within the South Island. Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are the iwi, they are the prominent iwi and mana whenua of the whole of the district of Environment Canterbury. It has been recognised through past legislation that having that special status and that special association with the environment and having representation of Ngāi Tahu members on Environment Canterbury adds and enhances the quality of the decision making, the representation, and the good work of the council.

So the council has come here with this bill, which will make permanent the ability for Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to add those two representatives to Environment Canterbury. I want to just state that elections at large for the 14 councillors of Environment Canterbury will still continue. There will still be 14 councillors from North Canterbury; all the way down to South Canterbury; and all of the north, south, east, and west in Christchurch. Fourteen councillors will continue to be elected at large, will continue to represent the people of Canterbury. What this bill does is it reinstates that those two Ngāi Tahu members that are appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu add their knowledge and expertise to the decision making and the good work that Environment Canterbury does.

This is about enhanced representation. This is about democracy-plus. This is an innovation which has worked, which the National Party implemented—it worked for nearly a decade. The quality of the decision making that occurred in the complex work that they undertook—whether it was fresh-water planning, some very complex works—having the mana whenua voice at the council table made a world of difference and enhanced the ability so much so that Environment Canterbury has come in here to make this a permanent arrangement. So I’m delighted to be the member in charge of this bill and I’m happy, as we examine it further, to further justify the great reasons in support of this bill. Kia ora.

Members, just before I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee, we come first to Part 1. Part 1 is the debate on clauses 3 to 5A and Schedule 1, the preliminary provisions. The question is that Part 1 stand part. I did give the member some licence.

Firstly, this is not a reinstatement bill. That is a misleading position being proffered by the sponsor of this local bill. The reality is that when Ngāi Tahu were appointed to those two positions, so was everybody else on the board appointed to their position. So it was not a case of saying that Ngāi Tahu had a particular preference; it was a recognition of the fact that in a broad community where there is going to be an appointed board put together by the Minister, then it’s only appropriate to go to the widest possible representation. But in a democracy that we live in, when there is an elected body, then everybody in the community has an equal opportunity to stand and ultimately become elected. I don’t think the claims made by the member that there is such widespread support for this in Canterbury can do anything other than support my view that should there be Ngāi Tahu candidates seeking election to this board, then they would be successful. And I think we’ve got to be very, very careful that we don’t get carried away by a small group of the community who currently have representatives on the council and who have decided that this is a good thing to do. So while I’m not opposed to the input that comes from Ngāi Tahu—indeed, I’m a very strong supporter of it, and I think the fact that as a Minister I was instrumental in making them statutory partners in the recovery of Christchurch and the Greater Christchurch area earlier in the last decade demonstrates this.

There are some questions that I think the member needs to answer fairly quickly in order for us to progress a reasonable debate on this particular bill. The first is: was this bill discussed inside the Labour caucus, much as the Rotorua bill was, given that the two of them are extremely similar? Second question is: did the Attorney-General issue a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act statement that was consistent with the statement issued on the Rotorua bill? And the third point would be: what was the reference that the current Environment Canterbury council membership took from their constituencies to advance this bill? Because as a ratepayer in Canterbury, I do not recall ever being asked by the current council what my view was. It probably would have been a very favourable one—along the lines of let’s get the democracy making the choices that would see this type of representation on the board, around the council table.

But as it stands, this structure would mean that those two Ngāi Tahu representatives virtually had a veto over council decisions. Think about the 14 members sitting around the table, look at their current political representation, and recognise that the majority of them could be overturned any time by the Ngāi Tahu representation. And I have to say to this House that the current representation of that particular council is not at all along the lines that my political view would like to see there, but I can see that it is not appropriate to have a veto power inserted into the council structure—inserted on to the council—that would be able to be exercised against the judgment of elected members. And I say, again, that given the member’s claims that there is such widespread support in Canterbury for this, then surely any candidate going into an election with the imprimatur from Ngāi Tahu would be successful in their quest.

I’d like those questions answered so that we can progress this debate. Was it discussed by the Labour caucus in the context of the Rotorua bill that that caucus rejected, and was there a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act statement consistent with the Rotorua bill from the Attorney-General?

Thank you, Mr Chair. I acknowledge the contribution from the member opposite, but I do disagree with many of the points he has raised. Before I move to address those specific questions, I would just restate my position that this bill does reinstate Ngāi Tahu representatives, two members appointed by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, to Environment Canterbury. If I could direct the member back to the 2016 legislation, it said, “Two of the members appointed … must be persons recommended by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu.” That’s what the 2016 bill did, and if I come back to this bill, it does exactly the same thing: “[Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu] may appoint up to 2 members of the Council”. This bill does reinstate the appointment of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu’s right to put two members back on Environment Canterbury, so that is completely wrong, what the member was saying.

In terms of addressing the questions that were raised, whilst we do not divulge discussions that occur within caucus, what I can say is that the Labour members of this House, likewise the Greens and Te Paati Māori, have supported this bill throughout. So my role as the member in charge of the bill is to reach out and to garner as much support as possible in this House to progress this local bill—and this is a local bill; this is a local bill. This is a bill which is specific to the locality of the environment, Environment Canterbury, and there’s no point in terms of trying to make comparisons with another bill that is in this House, because that is an entirely different premise. It’s an entirely different purpose, an entirely different region, and there is no similarity at all between that other bill and this bill. So I would like this committee to come back to this bill and ensure that we can have a proper debate over its provisions.

The other aspect, in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment: yes, there was an assessment, which the Attorney-General did undertake on this bill, and I’m pleased to say that this bill did get a pass from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Whilst it could be argued on the face of it that, yes, this bill could make a differentiation between citizens based on race, the Attorney-General said that notwithstanding that, the fact that this bill ensures that the status of the Treaty and the position of Ngāi Tahu and their association with their representation on the bill—the fact that they have that special association means that there is no other comparative group in the country. There’s no other comparative group, and therefore there is no discrimination, because we are not comparing anything else.

There is only one Ngāi Tahu, there is only one mana whenua, there is only one group that represents the iwi in the rohe, in the takiwā of Environment Canterbury, and so there’s no question of discrimination. The Attorney-General acknowledged that, and that’s why this bill has the endorsement from the Attorney-General that it is in compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There may have been another question—I’m not too sure—from the member, but I hope that that for now is sufficient to respond to the points that were raised.

I’m going to call the Hon Gerry Brownlee again, but before I do I’m going to remind members, because I gave some latitude to the first two speakers, that we are speaking about Part 1 here, which are clauses 3 to 5A. Thank you.

Thank you for that, Mr Chair, but the point is, so that everyone understands exactly what the bill is about, the minutiae of detail inside any particular section becomes somewhat irrelevant. It only gains its relevance from the wider understanding that people have of the bill. And I need to respond to the sponsoring member’s claim that I’m wrong about this bill being similar to the Rotorua bill, because this bill is, according to him, substantially different—I don’t see how that is—and I’m wrong in saying that this bill is not a reinstatement bill, and let me explain that last one, because the other points he makes are not explicable.

The bill that was passed in 2016 was putting commissioners into Environment Canterbury (ECan). It was denying the elected rights of those who were sitting on ECan and replacing them with Government appointees. And as part of that process, the bill enabled Ngāi Tahu to nominate people who might be useful in the structure of that appointed group of commissioners. It did not say—it definitely did not say—that Ngāi Tahu made the appointments. The member read that word for word from the legislation. It did not say that Ngāi Tahu appointed them. It said Ngāi Tahu recommended, and the appointments were made, effectively, by the Governor-General after a request for the Governor-General to do so, coming from Cabinet.

I have to tell the Minister that there were a range of people considered at that time, and that there was finally agreement on the two people who would be the representatives, and that they were appointed by the Governor-General. The attempt was to get as broad a mix of skills as possible into that group of commissioners. It was achieved largely because the two Ngāi Tahu representatives had skills well beyond their deep understanding of the tikanga of Ngāi Tahu and the area that they came from. But remember that they also did not represent every single hapū group inside Ngāi Tahu as well.

So he is wrong to say this is a reinstatement bill. This is new. It’s a stepping over the top of the democratic process and allowing an iwi group in this country to decide that they will put two particular representatives on to a board, effectively, whether we like to look at it any other way, giving that group—because, clearly, they will be reporting back to the people who appointed them—veto rights over the activities of that council. That is a substantial shift from the concept of appointing commissioners. In many ways, the argument put forward for this bill by the promoter, on behalf of the Canterbury regional council—ECan—is a justification and almost a call for the reappointment of commissioners in Canterbury. And I tell you what—there would be very widespread support for that, because the current ECan group is, to say the least, somewhat woolly, and if we look at the reason why those commissioners were put in place in the first instance, which is the argument in favour of this bill from the proponents, it was because ECan had failed for over 20 years to bring down a water plan for Canterbury. The commissioners did that—they did it very successfully.

But since we’ve gone back to the democratic process, there’s been a slowing of all sorts of things. There’s been a throwing into the mix of an extraordinary range of different things that are affecting and slowing opportunities in communities. And given that’s it’s a council that’s supposed to look at our local resources and protect them, then I see very little evidence that that is to the fore in their thinking. I’ve only had two meetings with ECan in the last two years, and both of those meetings showed that the councillors are not in charge of the process. It is in fact the bureaucrats of the council who completely run it, and so we would ask the question: how is this bill going to create progress on the many issues, the environmental issues, that face people in Canterbury? What we’ve got at the moment is a massive bureaucratic sort of approach to almost every aspect of their work and very little progress for the people who pay their rates.

I know that I’ll get emails and other things condemning what I’ve had to say and all the rest of it—explaining how hard it is and what they have to do and blah, blah, blah. Well, imagine the overlay that will be put on to that body with two members who have veto authority based on their experience as iwi representatives. If they are elected, then that’s fine, and let’s make no bones about it. Ngāi Tahu is a very, very strong organisation, a great organisation for Te Wai Pounamu, great for the South Island, great for our Canterbury district—no question about that. They are people who come together because of their birthright, you could say, and who will invest in our communities and not look to run off anywhere else. They are there for the long haul and have been for the long haul. I acknowledge all of that.

But when there is that huge power, both economically and, it would seem, increasingly in population if we are to believe the position put forward by the sponsor of the bill, then why be afraid of the democratic process? Because that gives a greater mandate to anyone sitting at that table wanting to do things. I think there’s a real question that needs to be asked about why that’s not something that Ngāi Tahu have embraced, rather than coming to us and saying, “Well, we’re not sure that we can get all our people to agree in sufficient numbers to actually get someone who wants to represent us on to the council, so would you just let us have our own representative?” That’s really the question that’s being answered in this bill and it’s not appropriate. It’s not at all appropriate.

It would be easy to say, “Well, are there other groups that are similar?” Personally, there aren’t. There are no groups similar to Ngāi Tahu in the Canterbury region. But if we were to say, “Well, let’s have an amalgamation of interests and then we’ll see if we can write a bill that might get them in there.”, it only takes one elected body at a time to decide that these could be good things. We could have transport lobbyists coming together and saying, “We should have one of our transport people on there.” And then any one of a range of other things could be on there. The fact is that farming interests, which are very much affected by ECan, are represented on the council via the elective process.

So for this bill, while you want to call us back to that particular clause, you’ve got to understand from the start what it’s setting out to do and why it is inappropriate for what is being claimed. If in fact there is widespread support, as the member said, then there would be widespread support through the electoral process at the ballot box. If there is no particular other interest that can be represented, then that would make the ballot box process all that much clearer to every one of those eligible among that 600,000 population down in our part of the world who may or may not vote on this.

Then when it comes to the question, “Was this discussed?”, I have to say that at least one prominent member of the sponsor’s caucus did not appear to know a great deal about this bill until very recently. So I think the quality of discussion might have been a little bit short, and I can’t help feeling that someone like Tāmati Coffey might be feeling a little aggrieved that he got knocked over but this one somehow gets through.

We will get to the substance of the bill, clause by clause, bits of it, but I think there is still that acknowledgment needed that this is not a reinstatement bill; it is new. What we had from 2016 was very different from what is proposed in this bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge that the member Rino Tirikatene, who’s brought this local bill to the House, has done so on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury. I want to acknowledge that the member does represent that iwi, and that they no doubt have concerns—around the performance of local government, and control over the way land and water is used in decision making—which they feel they need to have a voice on. I can understand why, because, for many, many years, local government, local councils disrespected the values of communities—particularly Māori communities—all over New Zealand, by building waste-water treatment plants in front of their marae, in places like Māngere in Auckland, by dumping all the rubbish in landfills and estuaries where communities collected shellfish and exercised their customary rights. So it’s quite understandable that Māori communities—whānau, hapū, and iwi—all around New Zealand have concerns about the performance of local government and the exercise of decision making over natural resources in particular.

So we can understand why there is a desire to have some control or some say over decisions about resource consenting. But that’s a problem that was solved by the Resource Management Act (RMA). Now, it hasn’t been solved particularly well, because the Resource Management Act, while it sets up controls and a framework to apply for consents for the things we still need, like waste-water treatment plants, like roads—which also happened to favour Māori land rather than the farmers’ land when land was taken under the Public Works Act; so I think it’s important to acknowledge that as well. The Resource Management Act sets up the framework whereby concerns about how land is managed, the effects on water quality, and the effects on communities can be discussed, can be negotiated, and, if necessary, can be litigated through the Environment Court and appealed to higher courts.

So what I would propose, and what the ACT Party proposes, is that, in the absence of the concerns which potentially underlie the purpose of this piece of legislation being effectively articulated, it’s not clear what the purpose of this legislation is to achieve. It’s quite clear the purpose says that it’s to have two members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu appointed to Environment Canterbury—to an otherwise elected body—but it doesn’t say what the objective of that is. So I would ask the member: what’s the objective? Why is this necessary? Is it because Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are concerned that, essentially, decisions about natural resources—fresh water, land use, for example—are being made and they don’t recognise their customary rights, they don’t recognise the cultural impacts? Because, if that’s the case, Mr Tirikatene, I would say, look, that’s what the Resource Management Act is for.

Now, the ACT Party believes that the RMA should actually be dumped and improved. But that’s not to say that the voices of iwi, hapū, and whānau would be ignored, because, of course, when it comes to matters of fresh water and discharges into fresh water of nutrients and all these other things that are of great concern to communities around New Zealand, there has to be a way of identifying what’s the best outcome for communities. So the member hasn’t articulated why this bill is necessary, and that is the obligation on elected members—not to come to the House and say “The House must vote for this bill because I say so; because some people down where I live told me to come here to the House and do it.” Environment Canterbury themselves don’t have a democratic mandate for this proposed legislation. They haven’t gone back to the voters of Canterbury and asked for their support.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I note that we are on Part 1 of this bill—is that correct, sir? So Part 1 concerns the preliminary provisions and, granted, there is some latitude at the start of these debates to traverse a bit wider, but I would just draw the attention of the committee of the whole House to Part 1. But if I may, I just want to quickly respond to the points that Mr Brownlee and Mr Court have raised.

Firstly, we can agree to disagree in terms of the use of the language of reinstatement or not, but the end result is that from 2016 to 2019 there were Ngāi Tahu representatives on Environment Canterbury that were recommended and put through by Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. They performed their jobs along with all the other elected councillors, because it was a hybrid transitional group at that point. They performed their roles just exactly the same as all the other members of the council at that time. So that is what this bill does.

That, really, goes on to the next point: what is the purpose, what is the objective of this bill? The objective of this bill: Environment Canterbury has come to this House to make some bespoke changes to the local government legislation which allows Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the mana whenua, the group which has no comparison to any other group in Te Waipounamu, the Treaty partner, the ability to appoint two representatives to that council, and they have great experience of working together. It took place over a period of nearly 10 years. So that is the objective of this bill.

The reason why is because it works for Environment Canterbury. The quality of decision making, the knowledge and experience that the Ngāi Tahu representatives bring to the council table, actually led to better council decision-making and better outcomes in freshwater management and in other aspects of the environment. And why is that important? It is because Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has a special connection to the environment, because Ngāi Tahu are the iwi, the mana whenua, the Treaty partner whose ancestral landscape is the Te Waipounamu; it is the whole region of Canterbury.

I am the member in charge of this bill. I’m very grateful that the promoter, Environment Canterbury, asked me to be the member in charge, but I don’t represent Ngāi Tahu. I’m the member for Te Tai Tonga. I am the member that is bringing this local bill to the House. I have Ngāi Tahu whakapapa but I represent all Māori who are on the Māori roll in Te Tai Tonga. I am not the member for Ngāi Tahu—just to clarify that point—but I’m very proud to be able to bring this bill to the House. I hope that addresses those concerns, and I ask the House that we get back to Part 1.

Thank you to the member Rino Tirikatene for clarifying your role. I do appreciate it. But I want to come back to my question. I don’t understand why. You have rightly pointed out that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the iwi, do have a special connection to the land. They have a cultural connection, and also they’ve continuously occupied large parts of it. So let’s just assume, right, that’s a fact. But there are avenues for Ngāi Tahu to make clear their expectations around environmental management, to have the opportunity to submit to bills and submit on resource consents, for example. Also, under the previous arrangement where members of Ngāi Tahu were appointed to the transitional commissioner role, that was also an opportunity to give their view on matters that are important to Ngāi Tahu. So there is potentially still an opportunity. If the case the member wishes to make is that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu require an extraordinary level of access into the elected members of Environment Canterbury by being able to sit around the table with them—and that’s an extraordinary level of access compared to, say, Federated Farmers or Irrigation New Zealand or Transporting New Zealand. It’s an extraordinary level of access.

💬 Barbara Edmonds: Point of order. I just want to reiterate the point that was made by the member Rino Tirikatene, the sponsor of the bill. Part 1 is quite narrow in the sense that it’s purpose, interpretation, relationship. The points that the member is making—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! It’s not my business to point it out, but I’ll point out the very fact of the purpose is exactly what the member is talking about.

Thank you. So back to the purpose of the bill, for the benefit of that member, Barbara Edmonds. I’m asking: would the member sponsoring the bill please explain what the objectives are behind this purpose? If the objectives are that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu seek to have an extraordinary opportunity over and above any other groups which have a longstanding connection to Te Wai Pounamu, the South Island, such as farmers, such as the transporting industry, such as the miners, the energy operators, then the member should make a case for that. And we haven’t heard that, because the purpose simply says to appoint up to two members of the council, so they can do elected council stuff. Well, it’s not clear why they need that opportunity and why they need those powers, which rightly should fall, under a liberal democracy, only to people who have sought to be elected.

So back to the purpose of the bill, for the benefit of that member, Barbara Edmonds—the purpose. What the ACT Party is asking is for the member sponsoring the bill to explain why Environment Canterbury thinks it’s so important that members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are appointed on to the council and have voting rights, and what objectives the purpose of this bill fulfils. Because it’s not clear.

If, as the member points out, there are cultural or customary connections with the land, there are many other avenues for Ngāi Tahu to demonstrate and actually to get influence over decision making, whether it’s through submissions through the resource consent process, or whether it’s, for example, taking their claim for rights and interests in fresh water to the Waitangi Tribunal. They currently have a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal, which I understand is on hold or awaiting the outcome, potentially, of the three waters legislation, which might give co-governance rights to iwi. Maybe that will solve the issue of freshwater rights.

But the member hasn’t made it clear what objectives this bill is trying to address, because if it’s around decision making over fresh water, well, then potentially Environment Canterbury should be saying to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, “We look forward to what the Waitangi Tribunal says about your right to some fresh water.”, because guess what! Ngāi Tahu have evidence that they were the first people to sell water in New Zealand to some French sailors who turned up in Akaroa harbour, and they charged them a gold coin to re-victual their ship with fresh water. So if they do have rights and interests in fresh water and they think they should have extraordinary decision-making powers over natural resources, let them have their day in court. But I’d like the member to explain: if that’s not the purpose, what is the purpose and what is the objective? Thank you.

In response to the member Simon Court, again, the purpose of this bill, the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, is to ensure that mana whenua, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, can appoint two representatives to Environment Canterbury. Why? Diversity of representation is important. It worked successfully in the Canterbury region for close to nine years. It was well supported by members at the time. That is why Environment Canterbury has brought this bill back to the House. It worked so well that they want to make it a permanent arrangement. And they have the support of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. This process, as I mentioned earlier, has been going on for years. This bill came to the House a couple of years ago. So the work that Environment Canterbury has been doing amongst the wider region of Canterbury, in relation to this bill, is substantive.

I would also say that mana whenua have a different status than just a farmers’ group or Forest & Bird. We are talking about the Treaty partner here. We are talking about Environment Canterbury wanting to be a good extension of that Treaty partner through inviting and having that Treaty partner at the table of Environment Canterbury. I just want to also say that the two Ngāi Tahu representatives on Environment Canterbury are not veto rights. Two of 16 does not make a veto right. The decisions that the council makes are consensus decisions, they are for the benefit of the region as a whole, and so to say that it allows veto rights is just simply not the case. I hope that addresses those questions from the member.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Really grateful for the sponsor, Rino Tirikatene, pointing out why the bill is needed.

I suggest that Mr Court and some other members actually read some history, because the fact that the ACT Party was putting Ngāi Tahu on the same basis as Federated Farmers as a stakeholder shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

It shows a fundamental failure to understand and read the Ngāi Tahu settlement and the recognition in that settlement which confirms the rangatiratanga and mana of Ngāi Tahu over their lands and affirmed the ability to have representatives of Ngāi Tahu—there’s a special adviser on the conservation boards, there are positions there for Ngāi Tahu; there was a relationship with Te Papa Atawhai over Te Waihora—Lake Ellesmere—and the statutory adviser position to the Department of Conservation.

So this comes from the settlement; this comes from Te Tiriti. It is recognising that mana whenua relationship because it is implicit in the bill, and what the National Party and ACT are totally confusing: equal representation with effective representation.

Part 1 of the bill refers to the Local Electoral Act. There are numerous instances around Aotearoa where you do not have equal representation. I am in the Banks Peninsula constituency of the Christchurch City Council. That constituency breaches the 10 percent plus or minus rule for the number of electors whom each councillor represents—by more than 61 percent. That is to recognise that the large size of the Banks Peninsula electorate requires one councillor, even if we don’t have the same number of electors as in some of the other constituencies in Christchurch.

Effective representation is about ensuring that there is a strong Ngāi Tahu voice as mana whenua around the council table. Mr Court referred to discharges. At Matariki, both Rino Tirikatene, myself, and Carmel Sepuloni and Tracey McLellan were at Takapūneke. That is illustrative of what happens when you don’t have mana whenua at the table.

We had the former Banks Peninsula District Council discharging sewage into Akaroa Harbour, establishing their waste-water plant adjacent to one of the most important sites in Aotearoa New Zealand history—at Takapūneke, where 200 people died because of Te Rauparaha’s use of the brig Elizabeth and the deceitful actions of Captain Thomas. That establishment of the waste-water plant—the establishment of the dump there—would not have happened if Ngāi Tahu had been at the table.

Environment Canterbury has a critical role in resource management—the land, the waters, the air, the coast. It is really important that they are represented in those decisions, and the misinformation that the National Party has been spreading by claiming that Part 1 of the bill—or Part 2—provides veto rights is an utter nonsense. The bill explicitly says that the Ngāi Tahu representatives have exactly the same functions and responsibilities as councillors.

This bill is about strengthening democracy. It’s about effective representation. It’s about recognising Te Tiriti o Waitangi and making it real at the regional council.

The nonsense that National and ACT are talking shows that they don’t appreciate history, they don’t appreciate the Treaty, and they don’t appreciate effective representation.

Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I want to start with a quote, and it talks to the clause around purpose, because we’re told that the purpose is about reinstatement. The quote here says “There was never any justification for why Canterbury should be the only region that doesn’t get to elect its regional council.” The only region. And that’s what will happen under this bill, it won’t get to elect its regional council. Is that statement from ACT? Is that a statement from National? That is a statement from Megan Woods in 2016. There was never any justification for why Canterbury should be the only region that doesn’t get to elect its regional council. “I urge all parties in Parliament to support this bill and restore democracy to Canterbury.” So you can’t have it both ways, Mr Tirikatene. Really, is that what you say in Opposition, but then you come to Government and then do something different? So under “purpose”, are you really saying this is about reinstatement of something that you fought hard to disestablish in Opposition, and now you are bringing in, in Government?

I want to return to the question that the Hon Gerry Brownlee asked, around whether this local bill had been to the Labour Party caucus. Quite rightly, Mr Tirikatene pointed out that conversations in caucus are for caucus, I don’t have an issue with that, but what we have here is a local bill. In Part 1, we have clause 5, “Relationship between this Act and other legislation applicable to local authorities”, so that’s why I’m asking the questions on this part. It is important to understand why it is a local bill, because even the Clerk’s Office says that a local bill can’t be about amending primary legislation. So that’s why this bill doesn’t amend primary legislation. So the question is, why is this not a Government bill that would amend primary legislation? And it comes back to that point: is it because a local bill did not have to go and seek support of the Labour caucus? Because we’re led to believe some Ministers in the Labour Cabinet said, in response to Tāmati Coffey’s bill being kicked out, they didn’t know how flawed it was because it hadn’t gone to the Labour caucus.

I was in an interview with Sarah Pallett on Newstalk ZB where she was directly asked by John MacDonald: did she see this bill go through the Labour caucus? She said she didn’t know, she wasn’t aware if it had. So the question is: why is this a local bill? Because, in fact, it’s a bill that has to be a workaround if it’s a local bill. It can’t amend primary legislation. So I think it is a very important question—why don’t Labour MPs know whether this bill has gone to the caucus, and why is it a local bill? We get told it’s a local bill because the local people asked for it. That’s what the Labour Government tells us. OK, if that’s true, I’d like to hear from the Minister what assurance and what evidence he saw from Environment Canterbury that they consulted local people in the formation of this bill. I’ll tell you what, Environment Canterbury (ECan) were all through the media when this bill came in to Parliament, and local people were very frustrated and ECan said, “Don’t worry, you’ll get your time to have your say in the select committee after the first reading.” That was the first time people in Canterbury had heard about this bill.

So some very clear questions. Can Rino Tirikatene tell us why his party advocated for one thing in Opposition and a different position in Government? Has this bill been through the caucus, and is that why it is a local bill—because it hasn’t? And, finally, we’d like to know what evidence he saw of local consultation.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to ask the member about the purpose clause, which is to “appoint up to 2 members of the Council in accordance with this Act,” and it goes on in clause 4(1) to talk about “member in relation to a Council means——“(a) an elected member; or (b) an appointed member”. I want to ask the member why this bill is going to effectively remove 129 years of local government democracy. New Zealand has had 129 years where everyone in this country has what’s called equal suffrage, equal voting rights, regardless of gender, class, or ethnicity. It’s been a pillar of our democracy for 129 years, and I want to ask the member why.

I note that the member referred to the Attorney-General in the human rights analysis, saying it was consistent with that. I just want to ask the member a little bit more around that, because the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been referred to at some length in association with things similar to this. Article 46 of that says “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.”

Then it says “In the exercise of the rights enunciated in the present Declaration, human rights and fundamental freedoms of all shall be respected. The exercise of the rights set forth in this Declaration shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law and in accordance with international human rights obligations.”—I draw a line under that: international human rights obligations—“Any such limitations shall be non-discriminatory and strictly necessary [and respect] for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for meeting the just and most compelling requirements of a democratic society.”

It then says “The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.” Then, if I turn to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 21 says “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”—not appointed representatives, I note; freely chosen representatives. Just to underline that point, article 21 goes on to say “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections”—not appointments, elections—“which shall be by universal and equal suffrage”—that’s equal voting rights—“and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

I turn back in the context of both of those international instruments to look at the purpose, which is to appoint two members, not elect two members. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes it very, very clear that human rights obligations and democracy are key, as is the right to elect those who govern us in this country. I ask the member: how on earth can this bill be consistent with those very clearly enunciated principles?

Thank you for the opportunity. I just want to respond to the contributions, and I want to acknowledge the Hon Eugenie Sage for her support for the bill. She hit the nail right on the head—this bill is about recognising Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the role that the mana whenua Ngāī Tahu has. It goes back to the Ngāi Tahu settlement where, in that settlement, it recognises that this is about a new age of cooperation between the Crown and Ngāi Tahu. Environment Canterbury gets it. That’s why they have come to this House with this local bill to ensure that they can see the evolution of that age of cooperation through the appointment of Ngāi Tahu representatives to Environment Canterbury. So I want to acknowledge the member for her contribution in that respect.

In relation to Mr Doocey: again, no member divulges conversations that take place within caucus. But what I can say is that this local bill, as a local bill, has been through all internal processes, and that that is why it has the support of the Labour members of this House. My role, as the sponsor of the bill, is to ensure that I can get the support to ensure its passage. So the Labour members are in support of this bill. It is a local bill, so it has nothing to do with other bills that might be within various stages of this House. This is a specific local bill relating to Environment Canterbury.

I also want to say that, when we talk about the history of representation for Canterbury, we mustn’t forget that National took a top-down approach when it sacked Environment Canterbury back in 2010 and appointed commissioners. Yes, the Labour Party was vehemently opposed to that action by the Government at that time. But this arrangement is a silver lining that emerged from that arrangement when commissioners were in charge and when there were transitional arrangements in place. This was a silver lining that came through and it’s worked. That is why Environment Canterbury have brought it back to the House—they want to make it a permanent arrangement because it did work. Having the knowledge, expertise, and the contributions of Ngāi Tahu representatives at the council enhanced the decision making and made for better council decisions. That’s why they’ve come back to this House: to ensure that.

I can also go back to the Hansard of that 2016 legislation at the time, where I spoke—we all spoke—in support of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu having the right to appoint members, which, incidentally, was made express through the passage of that bill through the House. I even—thinking back to my contributions at that stage—said, “What is going to happen at the end of the transition period? That arrangement needs to continue on.” And here we are today, with this bill being brought back to the House to ensure that that arrangement can be put permanently into law.

In relation to Mr Mooney’s contribution: again, he was quoting from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. That declaration is subject to domestic laws that we pass here, in this Parliament. That’s what we’re doing—this is a local bill which has come through. This legislation is its own piece of law, which is relevant for Environment Canterbury and the Canterbury region, and which recognises its mana whenua Treaty partner in Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu having the right to have its representatives at the council level. So that’s what we’re doing here, in terms of putting through this bespoke piece of legislation. This is only applicable to Canterbury—that is why it’s a local bill. It doesn’t apply anywhere else in Aotearoa. I struggle to think how it could, actually, because, for such a vast geographical area, there is only one single iwi mana whenua Treaty partner in Ngāi Tahu and that is why this arrangement can be brought through to this House, and that’s why Environment Canterbury are doing it through this local bill. I’ll just leave that at that, for now.

If the member Rino Tirikatene’s assertion is correct and reasonable in all regards, and if the benefits of the appointed process are so great and so wonderful, why doesn’t he move to strike out clause 13, “Council may establish Māori constituencies”?

If we look back at the part that we’re actually discussing at the present time, there is an appointment of two Ngāi Tahu representatives. Now, given that that will raise the numbers around the council table to 16 and that, in order to create those Māori constituencies or anything else like that that might be of a particular desire to that group of the community, it’s straightaway two votes ahead, so why do we have to have, in this bill, that provision? This bill would be much more in line with the argument that’s being advanced by Environment Canterbury and by the sponsor of the bill if, in fact, the bill prohibited the council, once appointments are made, from taking any action under section 19Z(2) of the Local Government Act 2001. But it doesn’t.

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order. I understand this bill is being taken part by part. Mr Brownlee is referring to Part 2, and we’re on Part 1. I’m happy for the bill to be taken as a single part and seek leave for that to be done if that helps.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Thank you.

Well, that is entirely up to them, but the point is that Part 1 of the bill goes right to the issue of the appointment of the two representatives from Ngāi Tahu, and it would seem illogical that we can’t refer to the consequences of that part reflected in other parts of the bill. So the very simple question to the sponsor of the bill: why has that dual situation been allowed?

Point of order. I seek leave for the bill to be considered as one part.

Leave has been requested for that course of action. Is there any objection? There’s objection. I call Simon Court.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What? No answer? I yielded time.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: How’s this supposed to work?

Oh, Mr Brownlee would like to continue his call. I’m happy to wait, otherwise—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That side is so confused. Sort yourselves out.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Simon Court, you have the call. If you don’t want it, we’ll move to the next step.

Thank you, Mr Chair.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Mr Chair. Look, I was part of the group that actually devised this new process for the committee of the whole House to work, and the deal—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is not a point of order.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Beg your pardon?

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I’m not talking to you.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: You shouldn’t be talking at all.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: We’ll talk whenever we bloody like.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What was that, Willie?

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! If you want to take a point of order, please take the point of order.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am, but actually, the Standing Orders require that points of order are listened to in silence.

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Heard in silence. Quite right.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: So, Mr Chair, the arrangement was that while someone might have a call, they could ask a question, and if the person who was in the chair, effectively, on behalf of the bill—or the sponsor in this case—indicated that they wanted to respond, then you would yield to that position but then resume your call. And I saw Mr Tirikatene stand up, and, therefore, I—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well, I apologise if Mr Tirikatene did stand up. I didn’t see him stand up, and I called Simon Court as a result of it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So I just want to reflect on answers that the member sponsoring the bill, Rino Tirikatene, has given to the member Eugenie Sage, who stood up and gave an effusive but basically nonsensical set of reasons why the purpose of the bill would achieve some stuff—

💬 Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It made complete sense.

—under the Treaty of Waitangi. Well, it might make sense to the member Carmel Sepuloni because she’s used to hearing nonsense from within the Labour caucus, but it didn’t make any sense to people who sit on this side of the House.

I want to come back to the purpose and I want to ask the member: could he please explain some of the things that he said in response to Eugenie Sage’s statements, such as “The purpose of this bill fulfils the Crown obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi towards Ngāi Tahu.”? And, if so, I’d like him to tell us which ones, which obligations. Eugenie Sage also mentioned that they fulfilled the obligations of a Treaty settlement, in which case I would like, if the member agrees with these two statements by Eugenie Sage, the member to point out which clauses of the deed of the Treaty settlement, the deed, where it says that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu should have members appointed to Environment Canterbury with voting rights. Because if he can’t point to the Treaty of Waitangi obligation which says Ngāi Tahu should have voting rights on the regional council, or to the Treaty settlement, the particular clause that says that, then we’ll have to assume that that is not a valid reason.

But I want to come back to the purpose. And again, the member and others who’ve spoken in support of the bill have pointed out that Environment Canterbury can’t do their job. They can’t make decisions about resource allocation, they can’t make decisions about matters that have a potential cultural impact on the iwi, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, without having voting members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on the council. In fact, the member said quite clearly that without the input of Ngāi Tahu into decision making, how on earth would the council know. In fact, Eugenie Sage said the same thing: how would the council have known not to build a non-compliant waste-water treatment plant discharging effluent into Akaroa Harbour unless Ngāi Tahu told them so? Well, potentially what Environment Canterbury could do is ask an ecologist, ask an environmental scientist, or even ask Ngāi Tahu for a submission on what they think. But that doesn’t require that the iwi, that the rūnanga, have members appointed as voting members on to Environment Canterbury. It’s not possible to draw the conclusion that that’s necessary from the problem statement that the member or Eugenie Sage has described.

I would challenge any member of the committee: don’t leave this member Rino Tirikatene to stand up and have to defend this on his own. Many of you have degrees. In fact, I understand that the member Duncan Webb, he’s some kind of professor and he’s worked as a lawyer. So, potentially—

CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! Come back to the bill.

Thank you, Mr Chair. So, potentially, other members of the governing Labour Party could give some support to the member and help explain exactly why the purpose of the bill is described as to give voting rights to members of the runanga, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, to give effect to, or fulfil, a Treaty obligation, or otherwise fulfil the condition of a Treaty settlement. Otherwise, we put a line through those two and we say, “That’s nonsense. Please continue to find a reason why this legislation is necessary and what objectives it will fulfil that can’t be fulfilled simply by writing to Ngāi Tahu and seeking advice, or by asking them ‘Could we procure your services to give advice on an ongoing basis because there’s difficult stuff that impacts you that we’d like more advice on.’” That simply doesn’t require that this bill provides for Environment Canterbury, through Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, to have their appointees given voting rights over resource allocations, decisions around land and water that affect everybody in Canterbury, not just Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. I’d like the member to please explain, because we haven’t heard it yet.

Thank you, Mr Chair. I wasn’t sure; I thought the member Rino Tirikatene may have been going to respond, but maybe we’ll back up all of our questions and let the sponsor of the bill have a good run next time.

I’d like to cut to the chase on the purpose. We’ve talked a lot about the purpose of this bill, but I want to get into the background of it and actually ask what it is we’re doing. The sponsor of the bill said before that the result of this bill will not apply anywhere else in the country. But my question to the member is: is this bill going to create a precedent that will be rolled out across the country, and is this particular piece of legislation the test case for that? The reason I ask that is because of a quote from Willie Jackson, when he was on Q+A not too long ago, telling the people of this country that the nature of democracy has changed. Now, if the nature of democracy has changed, stand up and tell the country, because they have a right to know if the democracy in this country is being changed. And if this is test case No. 1, get up and deny it, Willie Jackson; get up and deny it. We’ve already seen the Labour Government back up on the Rotorua bill. Is the Labour Government going to have the wherewithal to back up on this bill as well, because this is changing the democracy in this country. I believe that if Jacinda Ardern and her Ministers no longer think that New Zealanders should have equal voting rights, then simply say so and be open and honest with the country, rather than this slippery slide of changing democracy by stealth.

Now, what I want to know from the member in charge of this bill is what the purpose of this legislation is in contrast to simply having members of Ngāi Tahu sitting around the table. I can use a very local example, Mr Tirikatene. The Westland District Council has been building its relationship with Ngāi Tahu—Makaawhio, Ngāti Waewae—over many years, and they have been invited to sit round the council table, and they do. They are a treasured partner in the local democracy, and there is no issue that has come before that council where those representatives have been able to present their case in support or opposition, where the council has opposed their view. They are valued partners, their opinions matter, but they do not need the special privilege of having an appointment and a paid position on the council in order to influence. And that is because relationships have been built over time. It is not being done by stealth, and I think the democratic role that the other councillors play on the council gives credence to the voices of the public and it gives respect to Ngāti Waewae and Makaawhio, and I think that is how you govern together. But this, Mr Tirikatene—and the other alert that we had, which came up in the select committee, was a submission that was made by a Ngāi Tahu representative who said that this is the first step towards co-governance. And so I ask again: if this is the absolute purpose of this bill, have the honesty to stand up and say so to the people of this country, because they deserve to know where this is heading. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and I thank members for their contributions. In response firstly to Ms Pugh, look, I acknowledge the good work that is happening on the West Coast, but the mana whenua reps on the West Coast don’t have a vote, so it’s not equal. It’s not equal.

💬 Maureen Pugh: They don’t need one. They don’t need one. Everyone agrees with them.

Well, that’s fantastic for the West Coast, but what Environment Canterbury are wanting to do here is take it even further, to the next level, by giving the mana whenua, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the right to appoint two representatives to Environment Canterbury.

In relation to the issue around precedent, look, this is a unique, bespoke piece of legislation only relevant to Canterbury. It only applies to Canterbury, and that’s why it is a local bill. What other areas or people think of the bill is up to them, but in terms of the history of this bill, in terms of how the relationship that was forged between Environment Canterbury and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu came about, that was completely unique to the Canterbury region, and that’s why this is a local bill. So I wouldn’t even entertain any discussions around examples or precedents for anywhere else, because, as I’ve mentioned previously, I cannot foresee any equivalent scenario in any other region of the country which is equivalent to what Environment Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu have in the Canterbury region.

I want to pick up on the point around Māori constituencies or Māori wards. Yes, I’m proud that the Labour Government, our Government, has put in place the ability for local authorities around the country to create Māori wards. That was looked at by Environment Canterbury, but it was not the optimal solution to the issue that they had, but it’s important that that option remains, and that is a future possibility for a future council, that they may want to pick it up. That is a measure that we put in place as the Government to ensure that that can be applied right across the country, and that is an option which is available and which we would encourage councils to be able to adopt, but that is completely separate from this particular bill, which is, as I mentioned, a very bespoke solution which Environment Canterbury have brought to the House.

In relation to Mr Court, I have said many times why we have this bill, the purpose, the objectives of it, but what I would say is that Environment Canterbury are extending the recognition that the Crown has given to Ngāi Tahu, and I would invite the member to read the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act, and in particular the apology that’s contained in that Act. At the end of that apology, it talks about a new age of cooperation, and that’s what this bill reflects, and that is captured within its objects. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the member in the chair, Rino Tirikatene, for offering that perspective in a new spirit of cooperation. That sounds wonderful and it’s laudable, but it doesn’t explain why the purpose of the bill would give voting rights to members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, voting rights which every other member of Environment Canterbury has to seek a mandate for from voters.

So the voters of Canterbury, who include many people, as you’ve pointed out, sir, many Māori people who are on the Māori electoral roll or on the general roll—Māori people are on the general roll, believe it or not—who are able to vote for their Environment Canterbury representative. Some of them might vote for representatives who are passionate about cycling and walking, taking out car parks, painting the roads blue, and generally trying to fulfil what they think are their climate obligations to the planet—not to the economy and society; just to the planet. They might choose to elect people who represent farming groups or other interest groups, and, of course, they may choose to elect people who whakapapa back to Ngāi Tahu.

Of course, that’s what democracy is. It gives the voters—the people who pay rates or, in our case, the people who pay taxes—the opportunity to vote for people to represent them in decision making over the way public funds are used to buy stuff that gives social benefits. So we elect people to make decisions about things that have social benefits using public funds—money collected from ratepayers in the case of Environment Canterbury—and that’s why we insist they have a democratic mandate: no taxation without representation.

But what the member is proposing, and what none of the other Labour MPs have been able to stand up and explain either—even Mr Willie Jackson, who had some comments I couldn’t quite hear, but I think he was supporting. He said “ACT had the answer.” He was pointing at it and—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: “No”, I was saying.

—he was saying, “ACT has the answers when it comes to democracy.”—that’s what I heard. But I haven’t heard anyone stand up on the Government side and say that it’s important that we give voting rights to people who are not elected to have decision making over the way public funds are used and spent on things that council procures for social goods.

So if the member sincerely believes that Environment Canterbury can’t make decisions and recognise, in the spirit of cooperation, in the spirit of all the things we’ve learnt since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between two willing groups of people with their feet in the soil on the sandy beaches of New Zealand, who agreed willingly, in exchange of sovereignty for protection—

💬 Dr Duncan Webb: Point of order, Madam Chairperson. This debate is on Part 1 of the bill, which is preliminary provisions. This—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Thank you for that. Thank you—a good point of order to raise. However, I am listening very closely and following along with the bill. I am allowing a latitude as I want to in the committee stage, given this is a strongly debated issue. I thank the member for his point of order, but I am using my judgment in this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So back to the purpose of the bill, which the member has described but he has not fully explained why or, in the spirit of cooperation that he described between Environment Canterbury and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, what other forum are available to engage in this cooperation. Potentially, there are face-to-face meetings. Potentially, there is a request for Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to give advice to Environment Canterbury on matters that are important to Environment Canterbury and to the community, and they feel that Ngāi Tahu can make a contribution.

In fact, in a previous role, before I hung up my hard hat and came to Parliament, I used to give presentations to the mana whenua representatives of Auckland—of Tāmaki Makaurau—on matters that were important to them around why we needed to fix old landfills that were built in coastal areas and that were contaminating the sea, and on why we needed to fix waste-water systems. So there are opportunities for cooperation.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): The member will come back more closely to representation and elections.

So, as the member Rino Tirikatene pointed out, the intent is to improve cooperation. I would say that there are many opportunities for cooperation that do not require Ngāi Tahu to put non-elected members with voting rights on Environment Canterbury, and I would challenge the member to go around the country and explain to communities why this would be good for them, if—[Bell rung]

The—

💬 Rino Tirikatene: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jacqui Dean): Oh, Rino Tirikatene—you’re just in time.

In response to Mr Court, I guess, you know, we can agree to disagree, but my view and Environment Canterbury’s view of the Treaty and of the place that Ngāi Tahu has as the Treaty partner, in relation to the Canterbury region, they clearly differ, because this bill is about recognising that. I say that this bill is about democracy-plus. There is the ability for the citizens of Canterbury to elect their 14 regional councillors. They still have that ability. Across the seven ward districts, 14 councillors will still be elected, but what’s better is that there is now an enhanced representation on that council, which now, through this bill, will incorporate the experience, the knowledge, and the recognition of the Treaty partner, of the mana whenua at the council table. That is the purpose of this bill. We can agree to disagree, but that is very much what this bill stands for, and that is why Environment Canterbury has brought it to the House.

Mana whenua are the Treaty partner. There’s no comparison between a farmer group or a cycling interest group or a Forest & Bird. There is no comparator, and that was recognised by the Attorney-General, which is why this bill received a positive New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessment. Kia ora.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the member for agreeing that we can agree to disagree. That’s wonderful, because much of the debate around these matters can descend into vitriol, and it’s important that we all recognise that we come here representing our constituents and what we believe are their needs.

So, coming back to the purpose of the bill, if the purpose of the bill is to recognise that mana whenua—Ngāi Tahu in the South Island—have a special status and that that special status is so special that they require to have two members appointed to have voting rights over all the people of Canterbury, then it would be very difficult to not assume that that special status could be accorded to other iwi who could claim special status in other regions of New Zealand and seek to have the precedent—the special status precedent that the member describes—applied to other forms of local government, whether that be in Auckland, for example. It turns out that Auckland Council, when it was established, responded to the need to co-operate with and have an active engagement with mana whenua by having two members of mana whenua appointed to Auckland Council in just the role that the member describes Ngāi Tahu should have on Environment Canterbury. So there’s actually a precedent already set—in fact, it’s been demonstrated to work very effectively—to give a voice on Auckland Council for all of the mana whenua groups who are represented in Tāmaki-makau-rau.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: That’s right; it’s called co-governance.

And the Minister here, the member Mr Jackson, said that’s called co-governance. However, he’s completely wrong, because in Auckland Council—not only is he completely wrong, he’s completely wrong again, as my friend and colleague Chris Baillie points out—the mana whenua representatives do not vote. They do not vote. They are appointed to give advice on matters that are important to mana whenua. So co-governance indicates—and the member’s brought it up, and I’d like him to stand up and defend that. If he thinks that this bill is around co-governance, he should get up and explain why that’s good—

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: I’d like to do that.

Well, he should. In fact, the member is offering to stand up, and we await his contribution. In fact, if the member wants to stand up and defend the purpose of the bill, he’d be the only Labour MP, apart from the member, who would be prepared to stand up and defend it. But so far all we’ve heard is crickets from that side of the House, apart from the valiant efforts of the member Rino Tirikatene. So let’s come back to the purpose. So there are clear precedents for mana whenua, like Ngāi Tahu, which has a special status as having taken over most of the South Island, and so that’s their rohe—special status. Auckland Council has a way around that. They have mana whenua appointees to the council. In fact, when an ACT member of Parliament proposed the Auckland super-city, that was one of the things that ACT said was a good idea.

So, to be clear to the member, and to be clear to Mr Jackson, who thinks that ACT has a problem with Māori having their voice or representation, we don’t; we supported the inclusion of mana whenua representatives on Auckland Council, because we think it’s really important that people who represent mana whenua get to have their say on matters that have cultural significance. And, in fact, if you think about all the opportunities for cooperation, all the opportunities to give effect to the purpose of this bill, that don’t require Ngāi Tahu to have non-elected members appointed to be able to, potentially, override decisions of a split vote on Environment Canterbury, to form their own alliances with elected members, and to therefore exert an undue influence on decision making—if the purpose of the bill is to address the needs of mana whenua, Ngāi Tahu, to be heard around resource consenting decisions, about matters that affect them in terms of cultural impacts, there are many other opportunities to do that.

That’s why the ACT Party says this bill is completely unnecessary, and the purpose you’ve described actually doesn’t fulfil objectives that can’t be met with all types of other mechanisms. So, with all due respect to the member, yes, we do disagree. I do not consider that you have made the case as to why this bill is necessary. And, to the member here Chlöe Swarbrick, who said that basically this is to address colonisation, well, I’m afraid, Chlöe Swarbrick, there was a Treaty of Waitangi signed between two willing parties, where two people with their feet in the sand and their feet in the soil signed the Treaty that said, in exchange for ceding sovereignty to Queen Victoria, we all get equal rights before the law, and our property must be protected, and decision making over property is the important thing here. Thank you.

Members, Simon Court’s amendment to clause 4 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 176 is out of order as it is inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill.