Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill

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

Tihei-wā mauriora. Ki te whaiao ki te ao mārama. Ko te maunga Aoraki tātārehua e mihi ana ki te rangi, e mihi ana ki te whenua, e mihi ana ki ngā tāngata. Tū winiwini, tū wanawana kia puta ki te whaiao ki te ao mārama. Tēnā koutou ōku rangatira. Tēnā koutou Ngāi Tahu whānui. Tēnā koutou ngā tini whanaunga, ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, ngā hapū maha, ngā hapū rongonui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai, nau mai whakatau mai, nau mai hoki mai ki te Whare Pāremata e takatū nei. He hōnore nui tēnei māku e whakatū ki te tautoko ki te hēparatia tēnei pire i tēnei pānuitanga tuatoru.E mihi ana au ki te Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha, tēnā koutou e te kaunihera. Tēnā koutou mō te mahi tahi me Ngāi Tahu i tēnei pire. He rā nui whakahirahira tēnei. Tēnā koutou e ngā mate huhua o te wā e hinga atu rā e ninga mai nei kua whetūrangitia koutou. Hoki mai ki a tātou te kanohi ora e pae nei. Tēnā koutou e ngā kaumātua e ngā pōua me ngā tōua. Ki a koe te rangatira e Tā, Tā Tīpene, e mihi kau ana ki a koe e te rangatira, e te pāpā. Koutou e ngā Papatipu Runanga e tautoko nei i tēnei pire, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

[The breath, the energy of life. To the dawnlight, to the world of light. The misty mountain Aoraki greets the sky, the land and the people. Fearsome and formidable, to come forth to the dawnlight, to the world of light. Greetings, my chiefs. Greetings to the wider Ngāi Tahu. Greetings to my many relatives, to the local assemblies, to the many sub-tribes, to the well-known sub-tribes, greetings, greetings, welcome, welcome to the House of Parliament that is prepared for you. It is a great honour for me to stand in support and to shepherd this bill in its third reading. I acknowledge Environment Canterbury, greetings to the council. Thank you for your collaboration with Ngāi Tahi on this bill. This is a very important day. I acknowledge the many deceased of this time, you who have become stars in the heavens. Returning now to the living seated here. Greetings to the male and female elders. To you, Sir, to the chief Sir Tīpene, this is my greeting you, the patriarch. To you in the Papatipu Rūnanga who are supporting this bill, greetings to you all.]

As the member in charge, I am delighted to speak at the third reading of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill, te Pire Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha (Whakakanohitanga o Ngāi Tahu). This bill is an historic bill. This bill is about the evolution of our Treaty partnership and representation of Māori, of iwi, at the local government level. I want to commend Kaunihera Taiao ki Waitaha Environment Canterbury, for their boldness in bringing this bill to the House. This bill has been a long time in the making.

I want to acknowledge both the present council and the previous council for their work with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu in bringing this second iteration of this bill through to this House, and I’m absolutely honoured as the member in charge to now be at the third reading, right on the cusp of it being passed into law by this House.

I want to mihi to all my relations who have travelled from the great southern islands Te Wai Pounamu to be here to tautoko this significant occasion. In particular, I want to acknowledge Tā Tipene O’Regan, who is gracing us with his presence; our rangatira who has lead our great tribe and is now here to tautoko this significant development in that new age of cooperation that the Crown committed to with Ngāi Tahu through the Ngāi Tahu Settlement. So I mihi to Tā Tipene and I mihi to our Papatipu Rūnanga—the faces of Ngāi Tahu that make up the mana whenua that will be represented on te kaunihera on the Environment Canterbury Council.

Because it is the hapu—it is the Papatipu Rūnanga—that hold up the great iwi of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and they are all represented here today in the Canterbury region.

I want to acknowledge all of those Ngā Paptipu Rūnanga, and they are Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura, Te Rūnanga o Ngai Tūāhuriri, Te Rūnanga o Ōnuku, Te Rūnanga o Koukourārata, Te Rūnanga o Raiwera, Te Rūnanga o Taumutu, Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke—Rāpaki—Te Rūnanga o Arowhenua, Te Rūnanga o Waihao, and Te Rūnanga o Moeraki.

Our Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, who have been working in a tuia partnership for many years with Environment Canterbury are now taking the next level through the enshrinement in this legislation to have their representation right around the table at the regional council level. I want to mihi to all of their participation throughout the years and also their support for this legislation.

I do want to acknowledge the regional council especially, and that goes right from the chair, Jenny Hughey, and her team of councillors. I thank them for their tautoko. Right through all of the staff and members that have been working very, very closely through the passage of this bill.

I’ll get to acknowledge them later on, but this is a really significant piece of legislation because it reinstates Ngāi Tahu mana whenua representation at the regional council level. This is a unique piece of legislation; it’s bespoke to the Canterbury region. It recognises the vast takiwā of the Canterbury region from north of Kaikōura, south to the Waitaki River, from the Banks Peninsula all the way through to our mighty maunga, Aoraki. It’s a vast 44,500-square-kilometre area—the largest in the country—and also a population of 600,000 throughout that takiwā.

Throughout that massive takiwā, there is one mana whenua; there is one recognised iwi, and that is Ngāi Tahu, represented through Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. This bill is about ensuring that there is direct Ngāi Tahu representation at the regional council level; it recognises the Treaty partnership; it recognises Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Ngāi Tahu are entitled to this representation. They’re entitled to this representation because that is the promise of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and this is a modern-day expression of that promise. That’s what this bill provides: it provides for Ngāi Tahu through recognising their mana, recognising their rangatiratanga to have their ability to appoint two representatives to the regional council.

It’s a big regional council; the good citizens and ratepayers of the Canterbury region will still get 14 elected members from that vast takiwā area; they will still have those members. But there will be the addition of two Ngāi Tahu councillors who will be at the table to provide enhanced decision-making and to provide that important mana whenua perspective into those decisions, because that is very important.

So this is a positive move and I commend Environment Canterbury for their forthrightness in bringing this bill to the House. It’s been an absolute pleasure shepherding it through thus far.

I’m not going to entertain the debates from the other side, because this is a time of celebrating the passage of this bill. In 2019, when we failed to pass an earlier iteration of this bill, I remember saying at that time that we will be back. I remember saying that our great maunga—our sacred maunga, Aoraki—is patient and is watchful.

I’m so delighted that we waited our turn and we have come back to this House. We have come back with this legislation and we have the numbers to pass it into law. I know those on the other side may be wanting to take us back; they want to take us back and put us in a box. But this is about the evolution of Aotearoa and the representation of Māori at council level.

I want to thank all the people that have been involved: David Perenara-O’Connell, Julian Phillips, Catherine Schache, David Cochrane—who was the solicitor draft person, all of my whanaunga from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, Lisa Tumahai, and all of the Ngā Papatipu Rūnanga, for the mahi tahi that has taken place in the culmination of this historic legislation.

I’m delighted that it will pass. I’m delighted that I’ve had the opportunity to shepherd it through. I commend this bill to the House, mō tātou, ā, mō kā uri ā muri ake nei [for us and our children after us]. Kia ora tātou.

💬 SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I do want to acknowledge the presence of the good people of Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu for the third reading of this bill, the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. I’m afraid to say that the National Party will not be voting for this piece of legislation, and we do not support it.

What does it do? This legislation allows for 14 councillors in Canterbury to be elected by everyone—Māori included—everybody in the community, and then after those 14 councillors are elected, Ngāi Tahu will appoint two more. So this is not a question of Māori wards in Canterbury, proportional to the population and democratically elected. It is about the appointments of two councillors on top of what has been a one person, one vote election.

Now, why are we worried about that? Why do we care? Because it goes against two principles that have been important to our democracy. The first is equal suffrage, which is enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—equal suffrage, which is equal voting rights for all New Zealanders—and also in the Human Rights Act around discrimination on ethnic grounds. The second principle that we’re concerned about is electoral accountability, because one of the things that keeps all of us in Parliament on the straight and narrow is we know that, if we get it wrong, we will be thrown out at the next election—which is what is going to happen to this Government, I predict. But under this bill, there is no such accountability because Ngāi Tahu get to appoint those two councillors for ever and a day; they cannot be thrown out, and there is no direct accountability.

I can’t believe that I’m standing here in this Parliament making this argument—defending equal suffrage and accountability at the ballot box. It astounds me that I’m having to make this argument, and frankly, it’s been very difficult to get the message across. I’m not going to criticise media generally, but I do want to make the point in regards to the Christchurch Press: you point blank refused to publish an article I wrote on this topic outlining our view, saying that they wouldn’t publish it because they needed to have a balanced article written by somebody else, which didn’t strike me as difficult to arrange. But lo and behold, this morning they do publish an article supportive of the bill and refuse to publish mine. And so it’s been very difficult to have a decent debate about what is an important issue. This is not just a matter for Canterbury; it’s a matter for the whole country.

Now, there’s two points. We don’t agree with the change. Why is equal suffrage important? I mean, why did Kate Sheppard, 100 years ago, argue for equal suffrage? Why is it an assumption that people are abasing? I would say it was pretty obvious: most people living in a democracy expect to have an equal say about who governs them and the decisions affecting their lives. If you look around the world, it is something that many people aspire to and don’t have access to right now. There are many countries in the world where people don’t have an equal say in who governs them, and they are worse for it. And they look to democracies like ours and they wish they could have it. Why is accountability important? Well, again, please show me a country in the world where the rulers of a country are not accountable at the ballot box which works well. Please show me an example, and I will be interested to see it.

But secondly, as well as why we don’t agree with the change, we don’t agree with the way that it is being done because, as the introducer said, this is an historic bill, an evolution of Aotearoa. And it will set a precedent—there’s no question about that across local government. Some argue that it’s unique to Canterbury. I can’t understand how you would say this is a modern expression of the Treaty, but it only applies in Canterbury. I’m sure there will be many other councils to which this logic will flow to, and then potentially to central government. But the thing that offends me is that, given this is a historic change that is being perpetrated, we have not heard once from the Prime Minister on the topic. In fact, for most of the debate, Ministers have refused to answer any questions about this bill. They’ve said, “It’s nothing to do with us. It’s a local bill; nothing to do with us.” But the Labour Party is voting it and making it pass. I still haven’t heard a word on the subject apart from some flummery in the House yesterday from the Minister of Justice. We haven’t heard Ministers actually defending the logic of this bill. No case has been mounted. It’s been carried through in a local bill, and so that’s where we’re at.

And then they say, “Well, the council asked for it.” Well, that’s good. I’m glad that the council asked for it, but we do note that the council made a deliberate decision, clearly, which I’ve got here, not to consult with their community and the public on this issue. So the public are the ones who haven’t had the opportunity to have a say. And so why are we worried about this? We’re worried because we’ve heard broader discussions and arguments put forward by Willie Jackson, who has told us that the nature of democracy in this country has changed, and so the nature has changed.

💬 Hon Willie Jackson: How did you get in?

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I’d just say to the Minister: I listened pretty carefully, and the member got in the same way that I did. But, if he means the member and not me, he should say, “the member” and not “you”.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister Willie Jackson said the nature of democracy has changed. And I suppose the question is: “To what?” When did we decide, as a country, that the nature of our democracy has changed? I don’t recall going along to a constituent assembly where we all decided that the nature of our democracy had changed. I don’t recall a referendum where we decided, and I don’t recall the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, going to the people at the 2020 election saying, “By the way, I’m going to change the nature of our democracy.” What mandate have they got for it, and what does it mean?

The suggestion is that the Treaty of Waitangi demands this. Well, it is our view, on this side of the House, that the Treaty of Waitangi does not trump democracy, and the country hasn’t decided that, and so, ultimately, what is being pushed here is, I think, a very divisive agenda which is pitting one group of New Zealanders against the others. They’ll say we’re being divisive by opposing it. This is not something that we have put forward; it is something that the Government has put forward. They haven’t argued for it, and they haven’t made a case for it. They are making a significant change to our democracy without asking New Zealanders first.

Now, there’s a couple of red herrings that have gone around about this. They said, “Well, National did it, earlier.” National appointed commissioners when the Canterbury Regional Council failed beforehand, and we included Ngāi Tahu representation in that. That is a very different thing, for a duly elected Government of the day, which is accountable to the people of New Zealand, making an appointment in a particular set of circumstances and being accountable. If people don’t like it—if the population didn’t like it—they could throw us out. And arguably they did, not just for this, but for other issues. So that’s very different to changing the law to give a permanent, unelected right by Ngāi Tahu to appoint two councillors—a very different thing, where the accountability won’t apply. So there is no comparison between those two things.

Secondly, we have a Michael Wood “special” saying, “Oh, because people who own property in different council areas get to vote in each, one person, one vote doesn’t apply.” The silly and irrelevant discussion, which is New Zealanders only get one vote per election and if anybody, including Ngāi Tahu members who might own multiple properties—all get access to vote in different elections. That law applies to everybody in this country, and that is the point. So we give clear warning.

💬 Debbie Ngarewa-Packer: Have you seen who owns houses?

Thank you. Thank you very much for the commentary. We give clear warning that this bill is being passed against the strong opposition of the National Party. We will repeal this Act if we are lucky to be elected at the next election. We assert two principles that are important to our democracy. That is, equal voting rights for all New Zealanders, and accountability at the ballot box. We think they are important. They are part of what makes this country precious. They are part of what makes this a successful modern economy, and those two principles are important. And if we get a chance to repeal it, some will complain that we are taking something away from somebody when we repeal this legislation.

I want it on the record that this bill was passed against the will of the Opposition. A change with widespread implications for democracy that has been pushed through without any attempt whatsoever to bring widespread acceptance across the House. It has been done on crude majority numbers and, as such, it will be repealed if we get the opportunity at the next election. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tuatahi e mihi ana ki a koutou Ngāi Tahu kua tae mai nei i tēnei wā ki te tautoko i tenei pire. E mihi ana ki a koutou e whakarangatira te kaupapa i tēnei wā. Nō reira, ki a koe e te pāpā, Tā Tīpene, ngā mihi ki a koe e te pāpā. Mō tō kaha ki te kōkiri te kaupapa, ki te whawhai mō te kaupapa i tahuri tō korowai rangatiratanga i runga i a tātou i tēnei wā tēnei te mihi ki a koe e te pāpā, koutou katoa, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā anō tātou katoa.

[Firstly, I would like to acknowledge you of Ngāi Tahu who have gathered here today to support this bill. Thank you for honouring this issue today. So, to the patriarch, Sir Tīpene, I acknowledge you. For your energy in championing this cause and fighting for this cause, we are honoured by your chiefly presence today, greetings oh patriarch, and everybody, greetings, greetings, greetings one and all.]

Tā Tipene graces us with his presence. He must have had a good laugh at that last kōrero when we had someone talking about democracy who is a product of the new democracy with his dirty, rotten, filthy deal in Epsom. He’s forgotten about the new democracy, where his leader did a deal with the ACT Party and put him in on the list. Oh, no, democracy doesn’t count there because that’s a dirty, rotten, filthy deal between the National Party and the ACT Party. Oh, no we’ll forget about that—the rorting of democracy only applies to Māori! So shame on you, Mr Goldsmith.

I am proud to tautoko this bill, proud to support this bill. This is about the promise of the Treaty coming to fruition, and that’s what my good friend and colleague Rino Tirikatene has said. It’s taken too long for Māori to get the most basic of representation at local and regional level. I salute all our whānau who’ve come in from Ngāi Tahu for your absolute commitment to this kaupapa. What makes the struggle for equality under the Treaty so much more difficult is when our colleagues on the right pull political stunts to manipulate Kiwis’ ignorance of our past by weaponising the one person, one vote principle.

It is a disgrace that the right would use such spiteful dog-whistles—I was going to say “racist” and I think I can say that with right-wingers, can’t I, Mr Speaker; I’m not talking about anyone in particular—by claiming that the honouring of the Treaty amounts to a desecration of the one person, one vote democratic value when there are multiple examples from the very democratic tradition that they pretend to care about that shows that one person, one vote is but one value within the democracy, not the only value.

Mr Speaker, the House of Lords—I’m sure you’ve been there—is not one person, one vote. The Electoral College is not one person, one vote. The Senate is not one person, one vote. In New Zealand, our own very country, with MMP it’s not one person, one vote. It’s one person, two votes. Why are Māori having to explain democracy to those who claim to protect it? The right would not for one moment claim that America or the UK were not democracies, yet we in New Zealand, a country that has “one person, two votes” extends the universal suffrage of representation promised to us as Māori. We have Chris Luxon and David Seymour up in arms. Give us a break. We all watched the 6 o’clock news last night. Nicola Willis was squirming, and that was a story highlighting how multiple property owners can vote in multiple local body elections, giving landowners more power than the poor. I was watching Nicola struggle to answer why one person, one vote suddenly doesn’t apply to rich landowners. I kept watching it all night.

The question is: how many votes is the leader of the National Party going to get in the local elections? Seven? This is democracy—this is the wonderful democracy. This is a group of people who refuse to accept new democracy’s change in 1996 when Winston Peters chose them as a Government. That’s not a new democracy. It’s not a new democracy when you have four women in Parliament. It’s not a new democracy when you have more Māori in Parliament. It’s not a new democracy when you have more Pasifika in Parliament. Oh, no, that’s not a new democracy. It’s only a new democracy when Māori start working the system, and it’s a wrong democracy! It’s disgraceful the way this lot have carried on, the way they have manipulated the situation.

This Government is an example of the new democracy. We got 37 percent, they got 44 percent. We became the Government—that couldn’t have happened; under MMP, that’s the new democracy. What does the Opposition not understand about a new democracy? The representation of Ngāi Tahu on the Canterbury Regional Council for some reason scares them. It scares their friend Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB so much, but Mike doesn’t need to be frightened by Māori gaining what’s been promised to them under the Treaty. We live in a democracy with one another and seek genuine engagement to build bridges, not walls. Unfortunately, the right refuse to accept this. This is a maturing of our democracy. We seek to frame co-governance as a positive way forward. The right frames it as a racist evil by manufacturing “one person, one vote” outrage, when the very democratic system they claim to defend allows for many values that go beyond that.

I do think, as I’ve said, that the greatest hypocrisy in the right’s position against co-governance is that we are using the co-governance architecture that was built by the National Party and the ACT Party. Whether they want to admit it or not, that’s just a fact, and that’s why I say it’s incredible when we look back—and I was just given a note—and see that there are at least a dozen Treaty settlements that support co-governance brought in by the Hon Chris Finlayson. A dozen. And as I said also—

💬 Hon Member: What’s he got to say about this?

He supports us, actually. He’s a supporter. He says co-governance can work, not just in the natural resource area. It doesn’t just have to be about the lakes, and the sky, and the sea, and stars. It can be about Te Ao Māori in a modern context. So it’s just an outrage the way the right wing have been carrying on in terms of this bill. This has been such a wish of our people from Ngāi Tahu who come here. The way that things have been manipulated is almost beyond belief. This is not some Māori takeover. This is not about the Mahuta/Jackson quest for power, as the right wing and the National Party and the ACT Party have been trying to frame this for the last couple of years. There’s no takeover. This is about partnership. This is a partnership that is working. This is a partnership that is in the Treaty. This is a partnership that judges have talked about for the last 35 years—that apparently David Seymour knows more about than our very learned judges.

When we get things right, when we have the law in our favour, we’re opposed by the right wing absolutely. It is a disgrace, and this is a disgrace, and it’s a shame that our very learned knight and leader Tā Tipene has to witness this given all the history and experience he has had with the National Party. In fact—I’m not sure if he was part of it now. I’m sure he’ll tell me later. But I know that with his history and his experience and the work he has done with the Hon Doug Graham and Jim Bolger he’ll be shaking his head thinking, “What happened to the National Party? What happened to that commitment?” When you look at what’s happened in Te Uruwera, when you look at what’s happened in Auckland, when you look at what’s happened with the Ngāti Whātua settlement—settlements everywhere—you see co-governance working, everyone working in tandem, and yet the National Party are so opposed to this and are framing this in the most irresponsible and disgraceful way.

The Government embraces cooperation, embraces co-governance, and embraces representation. We see it as not only fulfilling this nation’s obligations under the Treaty; we also see it as the best way forward for our society, and I’m proud that we’ve been able to support these two new Māori seats for Ngāi Tahu. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak on the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill at its third reading. Before I begin, I just want to acknowledge the members of Canterbury and Ngāi Tahu who are in the gallery, and Tā Tipene O’Regan.

I’ll just touch on, briefly, the history. The National Party has had a proud history of developing its relationship with Māori, developing its relationship with Ngāi Tahu. I think about the negotiations between the Treaty Minister Doug Graham, who was the Treaty Minister in the National Government who negotiated with Tā Tipene O’Regan and Ngāi Tahu to have this settlement, the Ngāi Tahu settlement, which was signed in 1996. The National Party celebrates, acknowledges, and is proud for Ngāi Tahu and of Ngāi Tahu—the incredible efforts that Ngāi Tahu has made since then in developing their rohe, developing their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their people. It’s recognised throughout New Zealand and overseas, the extraordinary efforts they have made since then to develop their people and their area, and their business acumen is celebrated.

The unfortunate thing is this bill has got it wrong. I’ve heard the Hon Willie Jackson make a number of interesting comments, which I’ll touch on, which may indicate why there is some confusion that has led to where we are here. For example, he talked about MMP, and he said democracy changed. An interesting thing is that democracy changed in MMP when New Zealanders got a chance to vote on it in a referendum. When there is electoral change to the way that we operate and govern our country, we have a constitutional convention of having a referendum so the people of New Zealand can make a decision about how they want to be represented and how they want to be governed. That has not happened here.

We heard from the Hon Paul Goldsmith before, who said that the regional council didn’t even consult with their ratepayers. That is unfortunate. We have come to a place here where the regional council has sent a bill to Parliament and said to Parliament, “You sort it out.”, and we’ve just gone through a fairly truncated process, and we are here now.

This bill has a fundamental flaw in it from a constitutional perspective: it appoints two members to a body which is going to make the decisions for all of the people in its community. This undermines the constitutional convention of universal suffrage, which has been a defining point of New Zealand for 129 years. New Zealand is one of the youngest countries in the world. We have one of the oldest democracies in the world.

For 129 years we’ve had this convention that we have one person, one vote. I heard Minister Willie Jackson, again, say, “Oh, it’s not one person—it’s one person, two votes.” Well, the point is that everyone gets to make the vote for the electorate MP, the person who represents them in the region, and one vote for the party they want to represent them. Someone can, for example, think that their local member of Parliament, who may belong to, say, the Labour Party, is doing a good job for them, but they think that the National Party, by way of example, would be better in terms of their values at a national level. So each person has a choice to make about the party and about the actual local representative for them. Everyone has that right.

This bill undermines that principle of universal suffrage—that’s everyone having one person, one vote. Not only that, but it actually undermines the principle of voting, because these will be two members who are appointed to the regional council. Let’s just be clear: this is local government. Local government is government, and under our constitutional conventions we have this principle of universal suffrage. But it’s not just a New Zealand principle.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified in 1948, born out of the experiences of countries around the world with regimes that did not honour the principle of voting for people who govern them. There was an agreement to have this Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 21 made it very clear. It said, “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives”—not appointed representatives. It went 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 which shall … be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.” So there is an international agreement that the will of the Government and the basis of the authority of the Government is expressed in genuine and free elections, which are through universal suffrage. This bill undermines that principle.

I would also note that the Attorney-General’s opinion on this, in my view, has unfortunately not delved into this in any great detail. It’s just said that “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.” It said, “On the basis of this, the Settlement awarded Ngāi Tahu positions of input into environmental management bodies throughout the South Island/Te Wai Pounamu. This included establishing a Ngāi Tahu statutory adviser position to the Department of Conservation and awarding dedicated seats to appointees of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on the New Zealand Conservation Authority and on Conservation Boards within the Ngāi Tahu Claim Area.” It goes on to say that it thinks that although this could ostensibly be seen as discriminating against others because they can’t be appointed unless they’re Ngāi Tahu, they think because of the special relationship, this bill is justified.

It doesn’t address that issue of universal suffrage. It does not address another key point. These bodies, the New Zealand Conservation Authority, the Department of Conservation, are responsible to bodies which are politically accountable. That’s an important point, because people have a right to be governed by those over whom they have the right to have a say in whether they are appointed to their position of governance and a say in whether they are removed from their position of governance if they don’t think they’re doing a good job. This bill, unfortunately, undermines that key principle and undermines that fundamental democratic electoral accountability, which has been key to balancing the different dynamics in our communities for 129 years.

That is the point of democratic electoral accountability—that we have a lot of different opinions in our communities, we have a lot of different views in our communities, and we need to find ways to balance them; and that everyone has the view that they have at least had an opportunity to have an input into those decisions. This bill, unfortunately, undermines that.

Let’s just be clear. There wouldn’t be too many people in New Zealand who don’t think that the Treaty process has been a good one overall in terms of addressing historical grievances and in terms of making them right to a degree—certainly by no means perfect, but making steps to acknowledge wrongs that’ve been done in the past and to make right those wrongs as far as has been possible through this democratic process. The important thing is that New Zealand has accepted that under our political system, under a system in which each person has the right to participate in voting for those who make those decisions. That’s a really key, fundamental point.

So I do, unfortunately, have to stand to oppose this bill and to say that it is unfortunate that we are undermining 129 years of universal suffrage in New Zealand. We are undermining the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If I look at the Treaty of Waitangi, we have article 1, which is kāwanatanga, governorship, and there’s different views on this. There’s article 2, which is rangatiratanga—rangatiratanga over taonga, over lands, and other treasures which Māori have and had at the time of signing the Treaty of Waitangi. Then there’s article 3, which is equal rights of citizens of these lands. I do not see how this opinion from the Attorney-General has adequately connected those three critical principles in the Treaty of Waitangi with this bill. So it is with regret that I do have to rise to oppose this bill. I would stress that the National Party and myself are strong supporters of Ngāi Tahu and we wish their continued success into the future. But this bill is not a good one, so I cannot commend this bill to the House.

If ever there was a reason to stop voting National, today is the day. I grew up in a horse racing family, and my dad taught me about the importance of having “A dollar each way, son—have a dollar each way.” Every time that I heard that previous contributor, Joseph Mooney, talk about how supportive he was of Ngāi Tahu and your journey, and then he put in there, “Oh, but, unfortunately, I’m not going to be able to support it today.”—I heard a person that was putting a dollar each way. Why? Because he knows that there’s an election coming up next year, and he knows that he’s going to have to defend it in the electorate that he comes from, Southland. I hope—I hope—that your rūnanga holds him to account.

Ditto all of the National Party MPs who have stood here today, and their party, who have said that they will repeal your legislation in this House. They’ve said it blatantly, it’s all over their social media. They have drawn a line in the sand and they said that they are going to absolutely repeal this bill. They need to be held accountable for that. That’s a very bold statement, but even bolder when you’re sitting here in front of the iwi themselves. I’m glad that they’ve got their masks on because, if they didn’t, you’d probably be able to see the grimacing and maybe some of the underhanded words that should go with the opposition that you’re putting up towards this bill.

Tuatahi ake, he mihi tēnei ki a koutou o Ngāi Tahu, ngā pōua ngā tāua kua huihui mai nei i tēnei rā ki te hāpai i tēnei kaupapa. Mai i tēnei tētahi o ngā kaihoe o Te Arawa waka mai i Maketū ki Tongariro, he mihi tēnei ki a koutou katoa.

[First and foremost, this is my acknowledgment to you, Ngāi Tahu, to the male and female elders who have gathered here today to carry this issue. From me, one of the paddlers of the Arawa canoe, this is my greeting to you all.]

One of the amazing things that you get to experience when you sit on Māori Affairs Committee is the submissions that come in from Ngāi Tahu. Whenever they put in a submission to the committee, to this House, they preface it with the apology that was set down in their settlement that they signed back in 1996, that was enacted in 1997. Unfortunately, the wash of MPs in this House is such that so many forget it. They forget the apology. They forget what was signed up to. They look to the past and they have this political amnesia that takes place, and it needs to be addressed. So I thank you and I implore you and I encourage you to continue to put that apology at the start of all of your submissions so that whichever MP is looking over your submission in whatever context, whatever bill, whatever legislation you’re talking about, they are reminded of that apology.

For that context, I want to read some of that apology today because I think it’s incredibly apt. Section 6 of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act—this is the text in English of the apology—it says in subsection (4), “The Crown recognises that it has failed to act towards Ngāi Tahu reasonably and with the utmost good faith in a manner consistent with the honour of the Crown. That failure is referred to in the Ngāi Tahu saying ‘Te Hapa o Niu Tireni!’”—which translates to—“(‘The unfulfilled promise of New Zealand’). The Crown further recognises that its failure always to act in good faith deprived Ngāi Tahu of the opportunity to develop and kept the tribe for several generations in a state of poverty, a state referred to in the proverb ‘Te mate o te iwi’ (‘The malaise of the tribe’).

In subsection (6), it says, “The Crown expresses its profound regret and apologises unreservedly to all members of Ngāi Tahu Whānui for the suffering and [the] hardship caused to Ngāi Tahu, and for the harmful effects which resulted to the welfare, economy and development of Ngāi Tahu as a tribe. The Crown acknowledges that such suffering, hardship and harmful effects resulted from its failures to honour its obligations to Ngāi Tahu under the deeds of purchase whereby it acquired Ngāi Tahu lands, to set aside adequate lands for the tribe’s use, to allow reasonable access to traditional sources of food, to protect Ngāi Tahu’s rights to pounamu and … other valued possessions as the tribe wished to retain, or to remedy effectually Ngāi Tahu’s grievances.”

The kicker is subsection (8), where it says, “Accordingly, the Crown seeks on behalf of all New Zealanders to atone for these acknowledged injustices, so far as that is now possible, and, with the historical grievances finally settled as to matters set out in the Deed of Settlement signed on 21 November 1997, to begin the process of healing and to enter a new age of co-operation with Ngāi Tahu.” That was 25 years ago that they signed that. And it’s here, 25 years on, that we’re still having to wrestle this bill through Parliament, through our parliamentary structures, to enable you to have your new age of cooperation. I apologise that it’s taken this long, and I apologise that you have to go through this process. But we’re going to get this bill through, today, because it’s what you want.

The Opposition, for a long time now, have been fearmongering—absolutely fearmongering—New Zealanders into believing that this a Māori takeover, that Ngāi Tahu are a very wealthy, billion-dollar tribe, and that they don’t deserve an extra say on top of what they already get—the potential to be already enrolled as a candidate in the Environment Canterbury (ECan) elections and to go through the normal processes—which have entrenched a particular way of life here in New Zealand, which is fearful for the Opposition to think that that will change. But today it’s going to change, and I salute you for that.

I put a pānui out to all of those other iwi that are listening: Ngāi Tahu have opened the door. And for that reason, all of those iwi out there that are struggling with how representation works for them in their rohe, I hope that they’re understanding that this is a potential pathway. Not under the National Government, because they’re going to repeal it all, they’re going to take it all away, they’re going to make sure that they entrench the system that we’ve currently got whereby we don’t have this kind of representation. The ironic thing is they started it—they put the Act in place. They were the ones that came up with the ingenious idea to actually have two appointed people, appointed by Ngāi Tahu, on the Environment Canterbury board. They did this. But what are they doing? They’re politicking—they’re politicking—and they’re trying to take away what you want.

I’ll take this opportunity to remind them of a recent article that was written by the Hon Chris Finlayson, who had done his time in this House wearing his blue ribbon the whole way, but, having come out the other side, he made a few reflections in a recent E-Tangata column, and I want to read this to you. He says, “Once you’ve read the factual concessions by the Crown, [you’ve] read the apologies, you begin to realise the wrongs that have been committed. You begin to get a good understanding of the facts. The Crown promised to protect ‘the unqualified exercise of … [Māori] chieftainship over their lands, [over their] villages and … treasures’. But it not only failed to perform that obligation—it went out of its way to breach it. We must acknowledge that failure and that breach, and remain committed to putting things right. My perspective on how to put things right is fundamentally a centre-right one. It asks the question: Why does the government think it knows best? The government makes heaps of mistakes. I was in there for years. I saw; I know. So, I don’t think that government has all the answers, and I agree with Ronald Reagan that, so often, government is the problem.”

I want to acknowledge all of those councils that stood behind you on this journey. E ai ki te whakataukī, mā te huruhuru ka rere te manu.

[According to the proverb, it is the feathers that enable the bird to fly.]

It was the Christchurch City Council that fronted up and said that they wholeheartedly support this. It was the Hurunui District Council that put in their vote of confidence as well. But it was the Selwyn District Council that I was really listening to when they said, “Mana whenua representation on the regional council will strengthen the strategic partnerships in Canterbury between the papatipu rūnanga and local government.” The regional council has been clear that the benefits of mana whenua representation at the council table include greater efficiency in planning and consenting processes, and, also, reduced costs for the council and consent applicants, and improved enforcement decisions. Today is your day. We’re here to celebrate it. I commend my whanaunga here, and my colleague Rino Tirikatene—I see your mum and your sister up in the House there, e hoa, and they should be very proud of you. Today is a good day. We stand by you, and we support you on this journey. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, mauri ora ki a tātou katoa.

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

[Greetings, Mr Speaker, greetings one and all. First and foremost it is appropriate that I should acknowledge you, of Ngāi Tahu, and the mountains, the rivers and lands of the South Island of New Zealand, greetings, greetings.]

I’m really pleased to take a call on behalf of the Green Party on the third reading of the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. Can I congratulate the bill’s sponsor, Rino Tirikatene, for his work in shepherding it through Parliament, and can I acknowledge the very strong presence in the Speaker’s gallery of Ngāi Tahu whānui, representatives of the Papatipu Rūnanga, and the rangatira and New Zealander of the Year Tā Tīpene O’Regan. Can I also acknowledge the chair of Environment Canterbury, Jenny Hughey; the Tumu Taiao, Iaean Cranwell and Yvette Couch-Lewis; the delegation of councillors from Environment Canterbury; and support staff from both Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury.

The Green Party is really proud to support this bill because it recognises and helps implement the Te Tiriti partnership in Aotearoa New Zealand’s largest and second-most popular region of Waitaha Canterbury—the 45,000 square kilometres of Canterbury. It provides for representation of Ngāi Tahu as mana whenua, as a decision maker and not just an adviser at the table, and it’s critical because it strengthens democracy. It doesn’t diminish it, as the National Party is alleging. It strengthens it because it’s adding two additional representatives at the council table, ensuring that there will be a strong voice for Ngāi Tahu and active participation in decisions there.

Having mana whenua at the table is critically important for regional councils because, of course, they’ve got statutory responsibility under the Resource Management Act for management of te taiao—fresh water—the awa, the lakes, coastal waters, the soils, land, and also the air. So given the significance of te taiao in Te Ao Māori for the identity of mana whenua, for their culture, traditions, and for providing mahinga kai, it’s critical that Ngāi Tahu as mana whenua have a strong voice in decisions about the management of te taiao, and, of course, as the previous speaker Tāmati Coffey noted, the whole Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act—the apology that the Crown made—affirmed Ngāi Tahu’s special association with Canterbury’s natural environment. This bill, and the representation it provides, recognises that special association.

It is nonsense for National MPs to claim that this is diminishing democracy or that it’s advantaging Ngāi Tahu, because, as the Attorney-General noted in his report, no other comparator group is currently recognised by Government as having the association that Ngāi Tahu has with the Canterbury region. So there’s no other person or group that is going to be materially disadvantaged by this bill.

It’s also nonsense for National to claim that there hasn’t been consultation. There were some 1,600 submissions to the Māori Affairs Committee, and the committee very carefully considered the bill and those submissions. So the whole—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: What was the balance?

“What was the balance?” Mr Brownlee is asking. The National Party is whipping up misinformation and misrepresentation about this bill. It is scaremongering. That is diminishing democracy; not this bill.

The spam campaign that the National Party has been involved in, with over a million emails coming into members of Parliament—being fearful about this bill is what diminishes democracy, and I have said in response to some of those constituents who have emailed that they should go and read some history. They should understand that in Canterbury we are on land that Ngāi Tahu ended up having taken from them. That’s the basis of the claim. People need to learn the history of colonisation, the impacts of colonisation, and what this bill is doing to shape a democracy, a future for Aotearoa that is based on Te Tiriti as our constitutional foundation. I really acknowledge Tā Tīpene O’Regan, who has spent his life building biculturalism, building the connections between Te Ao Māori and Te Ao Pākehā. This is at the heart of this bill. It’s collective amnesia on behalf of the National Party for failing to recognise that.

Of course, the only good thing that came out of their stripping away of democracy in 2010 was the appointment of two members of Ngāi Tahu as commissioners to Environment Canterbury. It has been the work that those two representatives did and that the Tumu Taiao have done since which should reassure anybody who has concerns about this bill, because this bill is about ensuring that we don’t have decisions such as those made by the former Banks Peninsula County Council at Takapūneke to have a waste-water plant and a rubbish tip sited on a place that is so significant in the history of Aotearoa and where hundreds died. Those decisions were made because there was no Ngāi Tahu voice at the table.

This bill is about strengthening democracy. It’s about making good decisions which represent the mosaic, the cultural diversity of our society and culture, and is about building a stronger future. I was one of the regional councillors that was removed by Ministers Rodney Hide and Nick Smith in 2010. The only good thing that came out of having the commissioners that were appointed, because the National Government was concerned about how the council was increasing the flows in rivers like the Waimakariri to better restore their mauri and their health, was the active involvement of Ngāi Tahu. We have also seen it in the rebuilding of Christchurch after the earthquakes and the strong involvement of Ngāi Tahu in creating a new identity for our city which recognises our diversity, and this bill is part of that.

The Green Party strongly supports democratic representation through elected councillors and effective representation. The National Party gets hung up on equal representation, not effective representation. So we need options like the one this bill is creating to ensure that we’ve got that fair and effective representation of Māori constituents, and we ensure that the views of mana whenua are considered and a vital part of decision making. It will lead to better decisions. It will recognise that Ngāi Tahu once owned all of the land in Canterbury, and that will strengthen and not undermine democracy.

Nō reira, ko mātou o te Pāti Kākāriki e tautoko ana i tēnei āhuatanga, te mahi tahi me ngā mana whenua mō te oranga o te taiao. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa, kia ora mai tātou katoa.

[Therefore, we of the Green Party support this aspect, the collaboration with the people with authority over the land for the benefit of the environment. Greetings, greetings, greetings one and all, be well one and all.]

E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā rawa atu ki a koe. Kaupeka ki runga, kaupeka ki raro, kūī, kūī, whiti ora e! E mihi ana ki ngā rangi, e mihi ana ngā whenua he mihi ki ngā maunga o Ngāi Tahu, tēnā rawa atu ki a koutou, tēnā koutou, nau mai haere mai.

[Mr Speaker, warm greetings to you. Kaupeka above, and below, alive and flourishing! Greetings to the skies, greetings to the land, greetings to the mountains of Ngāi Tahu, a warm greeting to you, welcome, welcome.]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s wonderful this afternoon to put my voice, my thoughts, my opinions, and my aspirations to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill.

I haven’t shared it too often, but I have a middle name; it is “Kiritea”. It came about because I had a wonderful name gifted from my grandfather Iria I Te Rangi—a beautiful name that has followed many generations in my family. I come from a wonderful father with heritage from Ngāti Whitikaupeka Rongowhakaata, and I have a beautiful mother, European by descent, yea high, blonde, blue-eyed. So that comes together that, when I was born, I came out quite fair, with blonde hair, slightly brown skin, and was gifted the name “Kiritea” simply because Iria I Te Rangi was too Māori for such a fair boy. In some ways, that is a travesty—a travesty that such a strong generational name was taken away from me. Similarly taken was my language, my opportunity in life to grow up being Māori and European, but also growing up being Māori, having access to my reo, having access to my culture, having access to my whānau, and here, at the age of 40, I’m still learning te reo Māori today, still reconnecting with my whakapapa, still reconnecting with my whānau back in Mōkai Pātea, and still attempting to settle the whenua that was taken from my family.

I tell this story because I find the particular conversation around co-governance, I find the negativity, the tension with these types of conversations, personally challenging, because, ki tēnei taha, my beautiful mum, blonde, blue-eyed, beautiful European whānau that I lovely dearly, and on that side, ki tērā taha, my Māori whānau, who desperately wish that we had all the joys in the world, the knowledge, the mātauranga to be uniquely who we are, to have the voice that we absolutely want to have. And that tension runs deep, and as I sit here listening to the debate in the House this afternoon, I feel the tension across my brow, I look at the whānau up there, I look at my colleagues across the room, and I look at our members here in Labour, and this is one moment in time why I joined this party, why I got involved in politics, because I believe that our country, Aotearoa New Zealand, can be better. That’s what I signed up for. That’s what we signed up for, and that’s what they signed up for. And that is what our whānau want.

Those are the types of things that, as politicians, we stand up for what we believe in. We stand up for the change and the things that matter, and I look to this particular bill, and I think that this bill will empower Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to appoint two members to their council after the 2019 elections—two members. So there will be 16 members on council—16. So, when we discuss democracy, in our minds, democracy to some people is purely about numbers and votes. Democracy is about representation of people. It is about the representation of all people—

💬 Simon Court: You’re here because people voted.

—representation of all people—and comments like that are arrogant. They are ignorant, and they do not stand up for the challenges that Māori face to stand and represent in this House. It is not an equal system and by no means did any Māori have an easy pathway to get here. I look to Tāmaki-makau-rau, where I am from, and that’s the example, whānau mā, that I draw from. I think of the law that they changed, across the room, back in 2009, when they established the super city. They put in place the Māori Statutory Board, which aimed to improve the representation of Māori, the voice of Māori across Tāmaki-makau-rau, in the growing city that we are. We wanted Māori to be a part of that discussion, not left behind.

💬 Simon Court: A good idea.

Now, that was 13 years ago. It was a very good idea—it was a very good idea. In my time in Tāmaki-makau-rau, I have had the blessings and joys of seeing that growth of our city, our biculturalism, our stories and mātauranga of mana whenua in that city. It is imprinted in that city now to the extent that across new buildings and infrastructure, in transport, we see Māori designs everywhere, from mana whenua, so that all of our tamariki, our generations to come, will see their imprint across the infrastructure of our city. That’s not just hopes, aspirations, and ideologies; that is the beauty of Aotearoa New Zealand, where we stand here together—that we uniquely acknowledge and accept all of our voices to be heard. If we seek to look at democracy as purely one vote—one vote per person, a mathematical equation—that is not going to achieve the representation that we seek as a country. That is not going to make us richer in the Aotearoa New Zealand that we all aspire for our tamariki mokopuna, for our children and young people, moving forward.

What this bill does is enable local authorities to promote legislative change at a local level. This is Ngāi Tahu, this is Canterbury, uniquely identifying a representative system that they believe in, that they believe helps fulfil their aspirations. If anyone in this House believes that it doesn’t meet the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, you are factually wrong. This bill has been through that process. It is within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—

Tim van de Molen: Everyone’s entitled to your opinion!

It’s not my opinion. I have been through the process, and that misinformation from the ACT Party must stop. That is wrong, Simon Court.

💬 Simon Court: Point of order. The member was referring to that statement as if it was made by the ACT Party. I just want to correct the record. That statement was not.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge that. My point is that the misinformation that is shared around whether it’s this bill or whether it’s co-governance or whether it’s three waters—now is the time for our country to embrace the rich culture, representation, and equity that this country truly deserves. It’s about setting us up now for our tamariki mokopuna, for our future generations. But here we’re sweating two appointed members to a council, out of 16, and if we’re really concerned—if we’re really concerned—what’s lost? What is lost here? It is only the things that are gained for Canterbury, the things that are gained for Kai Tahu to fulfil their aspirations, their wawata, the things that they want for their rohe, for their iwi. This bill would have the effect of reinstating the mana whenua representation on Canterbury Regional Council, and that is an important thing. The misinformation, the negativity needs to end. Kia tau. We need to ensure that we have the best democratic models to set us up for a beautiful—a beautiful—inclusive future. Nō reira, e mihi ana ki a koutou. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I’d like to acknowledge Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu who are present here today; Tā Tipene O’Regan and Kaiwhakahaere Lisa Tumahai.

I want to start by just acknowledging some of the concerns that we have heard expressed in this House from the member sponsoring the bill, Rino Tirikatene, and from others, about why it’s important, they think, that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has two unelected representatives on the Canterbury Regional Council—Environment Canterbury. I just want to quote from an article which Lisa Tumahai published today, I believe: “We care deeply about our wai Māori … mahinga kai … [our awa] … taonga native species which have been passed down from our tīpuna … and will be the inheritance we are … bound to leave for future generations”. Well, I want to acknowledge that, because I also share those passions, those concerns, and want to pass on a clean environment with all of the natural resources that are important to all New Zealanders, to all those who come after us.

I’d also like to acknowledge another point that Lisa Tumahai made: “one example of kaitiakitanga and co-governance in action, at nearby Te Waihora (Lake Ellesmere) … partnered with [Environment Canterbury] and other agencies to protect this tribally and nationally significant site and halt the destruction of nearby wetlands.” Well, that is also something that many New Zealanders, particularly people like myself who have a passion for ecology, the natural environment, for fishing, for hunting, for just being out there in the bush and soaking up the smells and all of the things that nature gives us—we are also passionate about protecting these places and work in our communities. So we have that in common.

But where we depart is that, at its heart, this bill fails the test of democratic legitimacy. This bill overturns that by appointing two members from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to an otherwise—otherwise—democratically elected and accountable council. It gives Ngāi Tahu—who have, I understand, from statistics I’ve researched, 15,600-odd members in the region—two representatives for those 15,600, while it gives the other 630,000 people only 14 councillors, elected by universal suffrage. So it creates a disproportionate representation if we’re considering the number of people represented, even if you thought it was a good idea to appoint unelected people to have decision making on a council.

So Ngāi Tahu directors, we understand, who will be most likely the ones appointed to Canterbury Regional Council, are required to act in the interests of their corporation. There is going to be a real conflict of interest. It will come up, and I think it needs to be acknowledged. It needs to be on the record here. So this is not something that we’ve canvassed at length. We understand the core responsibility of Te Rūnanga representatives, as outlined in their charter as follows: they have a fundamental duty to administer the assets and liabilities as kaitiaki for Ngāi Tahu Whānui. In performing those duties, they must “act in good faith and in a manner that the Rūnanga Representative … believes on reasonable grounds is in the best interests of Ngāi Tahu Whānui as a whole”—the best interests of Ngāi Tahu Whānui as a whole. So that’s clear. That is their charter. That is their right to have that charter.

Then it goes on. In 8.2 of the charter, “Collective interests of Ngāi Tahu Whānui”, the representatives agree not to “act in a manner which unfairly prejudices or … discriminates against any particular Papatipu Rūnanga [against] that Rūnanga Representative … believes on reasonable grounds that [there is a] fundamental duty … [which] requires such action”.

That actually clashes with the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968, which makes it clear that elected members must not vote or take part in any council discussion if they have a pecuniary interest in the discussion. Elected members must be disqualified from such discussions. Now, what we understand about Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu is that they also, as a group, operate a very successful business that has commercial interests in forestry, farming, and they’re seeking to have resource development opportunities in what is currently Department of Conservation stewardship land. In fact, they were able to provide the only serious economic analysis and viewpoint from a commercial perspective of the proposed review of stewardship land, to which many, many people who operate in the commercial sector are grateful that they have provided that perspective.

But let’s be clear; appointing two representatives from a large organisation, which is a very successful business organisation, a very successful organisation, on to a democratically elected council who is tasked with making plans and rules and making decisions over how people use their land, making decisions as to how public funds collected from ratepayers and taxpayers are used. Appointing unelected people on to what would otherwise be a council of 14 elected people is fundamentally wrong. It is not a legitimate way to operate a democracy.

Another concern that’s been raised is there was no referendum of Canterbury voters. There was no test. One of the Labour members has pointed out that they’ve received tens of thousands of emails, tens of thousands from people in Canterbury, concerned. I want to read you one. “This legislation will not tweak representation. It will instead destroy foundational principles of democratic accountability and equal suffrage”. It goes on—it goes on to raise more of the points that I’ve raised. Now, you know, there are other New Zealanders, tens of thousands of them in Canterbury, who’ve drawn the same conclusions that I have, the same conclusions that other people from other parties in Opposition have spoken about today. They’re drawing those conclusions because that’s how they see the evidence before them.

So what problem is this bill trying to solve? Is it about having representation from Ngāi Tahu, the iwi whose takiwā includes all of the parts of the South Island, with the wonderful mountain ranges and the great rivers? Because poor decisions in the past have been made about water and natural resources? Well, that’s certainly a part of it, and poor decisions have been made. Is it about how resources are allocated, whether they be minerals, whether they be access to land for forestry and farming? Well, it’s certainly a part of it. But this bill doesn’t solve any of those things. All it really does is create a sense of angst and anxiety amongst many, many people that actually this is another attack on democracy, which this Government has specialised in. They’ve specialised in it.

So what would ACT do? Well, look, the member who spoke, the member from Auckland, Mr Halbert, spoke about the Independent Māori Statutory Board which was established when Auckland Council, the super-city, was established, which gives mana whenua in Auckland two seats at the table so that they can give advice as to what’s important to mana whenua. There is absolutely no reason why a similar provision can’t be made for Environment Canterbury, because it is important to hear the voice of mana whenua. I myself, as a civil and environmental engineer, have presented to mana whenua forums in Auckland explaining why pieces of infrastructure—certain issues around water quality—need to be resolved, and seeking their feedback. It’s important.

But, look, what would ACT do? Well, ACT would repeal this bill, when we are in Government. We believe, actually, that you must seek popular agreement. If you want to change the electoral system, we need to go back to the people of Canterbury and ask them what they want. The people of Canterbury should have the right to vote for their councillors, those councillors who spend ratepayers’ money on their behalf, and who make decisions about how resources are allocated, who gets consents, and who gets the water. Fundamentally, ACT opposes this bill because it’s not democratic.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, and to Ngāi Tahu, tēnā koutou katoa. You will know that Te Wai Pounamu is not my home. It’s always a lovely place to visit and experience. For me, in the context of Cook Islands Language Week—as we know, my home on one part of my family is back in the Cook Islands, the island of Aitutaki. Kia orana. But I hope to bring to this debate this afternoon my experience in local government for 10 years prior to coming to this Parliament. But before I do, I do want to place on record an apology to our visitors in the gallery this afternoon for listening to some of the comments that have been made by parliamentary colleagues on the other side of the House that, in my view, are out of line and unnecessary.

Mr Court has made some comments—and it’s no surprises there; it continues with the ACT Party’s approach of being on a one-track mind in terms of where they are heading. The suggestion that these changes will introduce disproportionate representation I cannot fathom, because this leads to increased, improved, and advancement on representation within a local community context.

The suggestion that Ngāi Tahu directors will fill up to two seats around the council table—that is a matter for Ngāi Tahu. That is a matter for them to consider who the best individuals will be to represent their communities around a local decision-making table that represents communities of interest. The suggestion from the ACT Party and from Mr Court that Māori can’t manage conflicts of interest I find absolutely abhorrent. I find those comments and that view absolutely abhorrent. What an insult, not only to our visitors but to others around the motu who can manage conflicts of interest around many, many council tables, many board tables around our community. He, in his own suggestion, indicates that Ngāi Tahu, from a business perspective, is a successful organisation, so one would think that any successful organisation is able to manage conflicts of interest. However, this bill will empower Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to appoint up to two members to the council following local elections.

This is a local bill, and I want to acknowledge my colleague Rino Tirikatene for doing what actually is his job. He is the local member. This is a local bill. There is a defined process that’s actually outlined in the in the Standing Orders of this Parliament, and he has approached that as any good local member should, would, and has done, so I want to acknowledge his work in this space.

It’s interesting, because there are suggestions around that what’s going to happen today, this afternoon, this evening is somehow representative of a Government agenda to implement Māori representatives across all of regional governments nationally by way of a local bill. Well, that’s not something that can be achieved by way of a local bill. A local bill—and I know because I have a local bill on the Order Paper today, the Palmerston North Reserves Empowering Amendment Bill—is something that’s defined in terms of dealing with a local issue.

Actually, I have to say that I reflected on some comments with my own local bill, and there was a fellow parliamentarian who, on the Hansard, says, “what’s known as a local bill—[it’s] relatively rare in the processes of our Parliament, but [is] quite an important tool for local government to sometimes address issue that are significant in terms of their inability to move things forward.”—an important tool for local government to address issues that are significant in terms of an inability to move things forward. That was a comment on the Hansard just this year from Hon Scott Simpson, the member opposite, who clearly has an understanding of what a local bill is. So I, again, congratulate my colleague Rino Tirikatene for bringing this to the House.

This was also an arrangement that was first put in place by the National Government back in 2010. I want to acknowledge Hon Eugenie Sage for reminding the House that an ACT Minister at the time, Rodney Hide, also had a hand to play in this. So isn’t it interesting that we get to the third reading this afternoon and the National Party and the ACT Party have made it very clear to everyone in the Parliament that they are not supportive of what this local bill is seeking to achieve? It’s good enough for them at a particular time and place, but it’s not good enough for them here and now. I think that is an absolute disgrace on the part of the National Party and the ACT Party as well, because since 2010, everything points to a significant level of achievement, given the involvement of that mana whenua voice when it comes to environmental issues and environmental matters of concern.

One of the interesting things that I’ve had a look at as part of the select committee process—and I want to acknowledge colleagues on the Māori Affairs Committee that progressed this bill—is the bill in its current form comes with a number of amendments in terms of remuneration, and the suggestion that we would be, or anyone in this particular space would be taking money out of an existing pool to fund two additional members. Those that are involved in local government, including yourself formerly, Mr Speaker, will know that that can be a very divisive process, a group of councillors working out how much money each individual is going to be paid based on the responsibilities that they have. The appointment of these additional two members is quite separate, and so I note that the select committee did identify that as a particular change in the bill moving forward.

When it comes to local government, there are three types, generally, of councils: a regional council, a local territorial authority, and a unitary council. Now, I’m familiar with the local territorial council because that’s where I’ve come from—things like playgrounds, roads, all of those sorts of things; very important things. Whereas the regional context is generally about the environment, some talk about public transport and the like. So what I think about is: how appropriate or not is it to have mana whenua involved in a decision-making process for a local community that has a huge impact on the local environment? I think, actually, the answer on this side of the House is really clear, and that’s that it’s extremely significant, it’s extremely important, and it is the right thing to do, particularly given the fact that Ngāi Tahu holds the rangatiratanga or the tribal authority for over 80 percent of Te Wai Pounamu, or, as we know, the South Island—a significant role. Is it too much to ask to have two members—up to two members—who would be guaranteed seats around that table—

💬 Matt Doocey: Already there.

—to participate in discussions, to take on their responsibilities? The members opposite say, “Yes, it is.” Well, again, that is an outright shame that that’s the view that some members of this House have.

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: A Cantabrian as well.

We are—and a Cantabrian as well. Well, doesn’t that hit to the heart. I mean—

💬 Hon Dr Megan Woods: Shameful.

It is shameful. So on this side of the House, we are about empowering local communities and acknowledging that, actually, local communities need to decide for themselves, in many respects, matters that are important to them. So I congratulate, again, the local member for doing his job and bringing this bill to the House.

Outlined in the legislation, which is the Local Government Act, which overrides all of these considerations in terms of the scope and the context—it kind of outlines what the responsibilities and roles and duties will be. What’s really disappointing is that up until this point in time, Ngāi Tahu have, I don’t know, sat at the table, sat alongside the table, maybe filled the seat, but for the last couple or two or three years, they haven’t actually been fully part of the decision-making table. This local bill will change that. It will give them the opportunity to sit where they deserve to be, to participate in a local decision-making process over many environmental points of interests that are important to them and their rohe.

There are many aspects that other members have canvassed as part of their contributions today, and I just want to also note the contribution that Eugenie Sage has made, because she has been a member of this local authority, and so she comes from a perspective where she clearly sees what difference this will make, from where that particular entity has come from and the future, the bright future that will now be in place, because this is a bill that will pass through the Parliament today. That means it is a day to rejoice and celebrate, because local democracy is being returned to the people of Canterbury, but more specifically to the people who Ngāi Tahu represent. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia orana koutou katoa.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill in its third reading. Can I acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene, Tā Tīpene O’Regan, and Ngāi Tahu, who are here today. Can I acknowledge Ngāi Tahu as mana whenua of the Waimakariri electorate and I acknowledge the proud history between Ngāi Tahu and the National Party.

This is a debate, so I don’t want to trot out the lines that some people have for the last hour and a half. I want to respond to some points, and Tangi Utikere, that last member who took his seat, apologised for some of the comments being made in this House. I do not believe any apology is needed. That is the reason why we have this Chamber—for debating the issues. It is a House of Representatives for all views to come into this House.

Shanan Halbert, quite rightly, in his speech talked about the tensions and how challenging it is. Well, that’s exactly right—that’s what politics should be. We are grappling with the big issues and it is uncomfortable at times.

I think the National Party has been very clear that we don’t disagree with representation around the table at Environment Canterbury (ECan) from Ngāi Tahu. It’s about this bill that’s been brought in as a local bill. The reason it’s a local bill is because it does not change primary legislation. If this is such a good thing, why is it not coming in as a Government bill to change the Local Government Act 2002?

The reason why there is heated debate is because this Government did not stand on this mandate at the last election. In their words, they’re tweaking and changing democracy without the debate. ECan introduced this bill without consultation with their local communities, so that’s why we are having this debate, and this debate is: why are we having a local bill that will allow these changes in New Zealand’s democracy?

Quite rightly, the National Party is standing up for what it believes in. I don’t think anyone would expect any different. That is the reason we are in this House—because we stand on values and then we stand up for the values.

I’ll give you a quote, if we want to talk about what happened in ECan with the appointed commissioners. Here’s a quote: “There was never any justification for why Canterbury should be the only region that doesn’t get to elect its regional council. National is out of touch with local people’s desire to have a say in the people who will take their region forward. I urge all parties in Parliament to support this bill and restore democracy in Canterbury.” That was from the Hon Dr Megan Woods. So the shoe’s on the other foot now, and that’s why we’ve been very clear about what we stand up for.

I actually believe there are a lot of commonalities in this debate. I want to draw reference to my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene, who talked about the evolution in New Zealand, and it is an evolution.

If I can briefly tell a personal story, I had quite a milestone birthday with my dad recently. There was a large group of people, and my six-year-old son, after the speeches, came up to me and said, “Dad, can I sing ‘Happy Birthday’?” It blew me away. A six-year-old boy—I didn’t think he’d have the confidence. We gave him the microphone—“Rā whānau ki a koe”—and he sang in te reo. Then, the next day, I heard him talk to my daughter and say, “Oh, I’m half-Irish, Mum’s half-Hungarian, and I’m half-Māori.” His older sister said, “You can’t be part-Māori.”, and he said, “Yes, I am, because I speak te reo.”

This is the next generation coming up, and each generation will have those shared stories. But that does not allow a Government that has had this bill voted down in a previous term decide that, now, we are in a one-party State. They can bring any legislation in and they’ve denied it will change law around the country, but we’ve also heard from speakers who’ve said that this will pave the way for the rest of New Zealand. This is not the right way to bring in legislation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

May I first begin by acknowledging the leaders of Papatipu Rūnanga and Tā Tipene O’Regan. Your presence here is a welcome blessing to us, and thank you for being here. I always want to acknowledge my colleague Rino Tirikatene for bringing this bill to the House. Thank you for your work, my friend. 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.]

As we’ve heard, the bill that is before us this afternoon is a bill that will empower Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to appoint up to two members to the council after the local elections. This is a local bill that the Canterbury Regional Council, colloquially known as ECan, has requested that Rino Tirikatene take to Parliament, as he has done. And, as we’ve heard, local bills enable local authorities to enable legislative change at a local level. It only applies to the Canterbury Regional Council at their request.

Now, since 2020, Environment Canterbury has had two wonderful Tumu Taiao who have been appointed and assist with council decision-making. They sit at the council table and make valuable contributions. But they do not have voting rights, which is: they’re sitting at the table but they’re not able to eat. And this bill is seeking to address that.

There’s been substantial support for this bill. In their submission, the Selwyn District Council commented, and I quote, “The approach in this bill to mana whenua representation at a regional governance level is a straightforward and effective way to give effect to basic obligations under current resource management legislation and Local Government Act 2002.” Obligation—please remember that word.

For Te Hapū o Ngāti Wheke Rāpaki, this bill is of great significance, because, and again I’m quoting from their submission, “It provides certainty that the values and concerns of mana whenua, as the Crown’s Tiriti partner, are given expression in the Crown’s decision making and the exercise of functions by the Crown and its agencies.” Tiriti partner—again, bear that in mind.

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu submitted that “while there is still a journey to be completed to full partnership and improved environmental outcomes, the distance that has been travelled since 2010 is significant.” “We believe”, they said, “that it is in no small measure as a result of this governance relationship, and reinstating direct Ngāi Tahu representation on council will ensure a continuation of that journey to full partnership.”—that word again.

Concerns are occasionally raised in this House about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance, and comparisons have been made occasionally in other speeches earlier between this bill and examples where other bills are not found to be compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, so I’d just like to emphasise, yet again, that the Attorney-General’s legal advice to this House was, and I’m going to sum up: “We have concluded that the bill appears to be consistent with that Act.” So no concerns there.

The Treaty of Waitangi settlement agreed putting Ngāi Tahu in the Crown in November 1997, and acknowledged the rangatiratanga and mana of Ngāi Tahu over their lands—also acknowledged by Environment Canterbury—and affirmed their special association with the natural environment in a number of areas. And Selwyn District Council drew attention to part of the Crown apology read earlier, delivered when the Crown sought to begin the process of healing and to enter a new age of cooperation with Ngāi Tahu.

Healing from what, some might ask? Let me refer you to the Hon Chris Finlayson, John Key’s Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, a member of the National Party, who said recently, in E-Tangata, “Once you’ve read the factual concessions by the Crown, read the apologies, you begin to realise the wrongs that have been committed. The Crown promised to protect ‘the unqualified exercise of … [Māori] chieftainship over their lands, villages, and … treasures.’ But it not only failed to perform that obligation—it went out of its way to breach it.” This bill is one step towards remedying that, and I commend it to the House.

My contribution this afternoon is not going to be, in its end, any different to the commentary that has been offered by other National speakers today, but I do want to start by acknowledging Ngāi Tahu, and particularly Sir Tīpene O’Regan, and the many other leaders who are here today.

I was in the House at the time of the settlement back in 1997. And I don’t resile from any of the commentary that was read out by Tāmati Coffey as he quoted from that apology. I was also here when there was the bill passed by our Government—or should I say, by a Government in this House—protecting pounamu as being exclusive to Ngāi Tahu. And I was here too when there was the commissioners appointed into Environment Canterbury (ECan). And the rationale for that—and I was a strong arguer for it—was that we were taking away broad representation that might be achieved through a ballot box, and deciding who it was who, for a time, would be placed with that responsibility to remedy some of the problems that ECan was beset with at the time; notwithstanding some of the attempts to write history again here today. I was also the recovery Minister in Christchurch, and was very strongly of a view that Ngāi Tahu should be recorded as statutory partners in that recovery. Each of those, though, are separate things and separate incidents that needed to have a different approach taken to it.

This bill is very bad process, as my colleague Mr Doocey previously pointed out, and I have in other stages of this bill. Why isn’t it on the Order Paper as a Government bill, so that it does become primary legislation? Perhaps a primary legislation with a schedule in it that makes the same offer to every other council, without the need to come through what is, essentially, a backdoor process.

I do want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleague Rino Tirikatene: a fine gentleman, someone who I’d consider to be a friend, although not a close one because of our political differences on other matters, but a man who is undervalued in this Parliament in my view. And I think nothing in my view would do anything other than respect the fact that you have brought the bill on behalf of those who ask for it. The question is: what was the basis for their asking for it? Where was their representation respected in the question they might have asked about those who sent them to sit around that table? It’s non-existent. And I think that is also a problem.

I want to talk about some of the co-governance arrangements that were made by our Government and by previous Labour Governments. Those are arrangements that have endured, that work, that are totally appropriate. They are specific to circumstances in this country. They are geographic locations, institutions, whatever you might like to take as being almost separate to the primary purpose of either central or local government—totally appropriate. And I think we’ll see a lot more of it in the years to come, and that will be good. I am not Ngāi Tahu, I’m not Māori, but I recognise Ngāi Tahu as being mana whenua in the only place that I can call home. And like many others, I have very close family who are Ngāi Tahu. So it’s not an issue about Ngāi Tahu versus everybody else. It is an issue about the principles of how the law in this country is constructed, and how it should be implemented.

I am surprised by some of the claims today that this is an imperative Treaty issue. Well, one of the imperatives of the Treaty was that it did respect the law. It was signed by many because there was a desire to have that law. And I just get a little bit annoyed by some of the unreasonable emotion that gets put on to it, particularly the commentary before from a speaker who I won’t name, talking about the extra emotion and sort of hype and everything that goes around this. Well, I haven’t engaged in any of that, but I do think that there is a proper process that we should be following.

I don’t need to take up the entire 10 minutes allocated on this particular topic, because I do think that once it is passed—and I acknowledge that it is going to pass today—the real point will be where do we go from here? And I have deep personal regret that there seems to be an apparent breakdown between the relationship of my political party and Ngāi Tahu. And I think there is, perhaps, not a deep enough understanding on either part about where either party might be coming from.

So can I finish just by saying that there has always been, since 1840, conflict over all sorts of littleish aspects of life in this country that shouldn’t exist. Some years ago I was the chairman of the Riccarton Bush Trust that administers a piece of land that I think is correctly named Pūtaringamotu. And when that remnant of native bush was being put into a management plan that we were very keen on—I remember that they used to mow underneath that bush so that you could see from one side to the other, completely destroying the fauna and flora that was underneath it. So a management plan was being put in place and we consulted with Ngāi Tahu, asked them if they wanted a representative on the trust, etc. And the answer came back “no”, and that wasn’t necessary. When the management plan was launched, it was Rick Tau who came and was the representative for the occasion on which that document was launched. What I remember him saying is that when the English came to Canterbury, both the Presbyterians who were in Riccarton and the Māori who were all over the rohe got done over. And I’ve got to say immediately that is not a Catholic having a go at the Anglicans and the Presbyterians, it is simply an acknowledgment that there has been a long time where there have been dealings that aren’t appropriate. But I don’t think for one minute that you can rectify all of that history by setting aside some of the good aspects that were achieved through the agreement of the Treaty, and use a process like this where there has not been the sort of public debate that there should be.

As for the suggestion that there’s been some sort of a massive effort to put out a whole lot of misinformation, I want to make it very clear, I’ve had no part in anything like that. It is simply a matter of there not being the following of a process that there should be, and a real question about why the Government, who have had speaker after speaker today stand up and say how wonderful this is, not have it in primary legislation with a schedule enabling others to participate.

Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Tēnā koutou rangatahi. Tēnā koutou mana whenua. Tēnā koutou whaea. Tēnā koutou rangatahi and tēnā koutou tamariki. [Greetings, Mr Speaker. Greetings, young people. Greetings to the people with authority over the land. Greetings, ladies. Greetings, young people and children.]

I also want to just acknowledge the Ngāi Tahu tūpuna and the long struggle that Ngāi Tahu have had to get some restoration to the place that they once occupied.

I’ve heard many of the speeches and I don’t intend to repeat everything that’s been said today, but I do want to just lay out the foundations of why this legislation is entirely appropriate and why it’s, in fact, an enhancement of our democratic and deliberative processes.

Ngāi Tahu, as we know, are signatories to Te Tiriti, and the Treaty promised rangatiratanga to iwi. We know now, quite clearly, that that promise in Te Tiriti has not been adhered to. That promise was to give rangatiratanga over whenua, over kāinga, and over taonga—in the loose translation of the English version, over lands, forests, fisheries, and all things precious to iwi. We know that the transactions, such as they were, by which Ngāi Tahu lost their lands and the things that were precious to them, weren’t just, that they weren’t honest, and that the Crown acted unconscionably. All that is acknowledged.

I know my friend and colleague Tāmati Coffey has referred to the Crown apology, but it’s worth emphasising that it absolutely recognises, embodied in legislation, that there was a breach of article 2, that the Crown failed to preserve and to protect Ngāi Tahu, and it failed to protect the ownership of their land and possessions. Moreover, it failed to acknowledge Ngāi Tahu’s rangatiratanga and mana over the South Island, in the land within its boundaries, and failed in fulfilment—the Crown failed in fulfilment of its Treaty obligations in recognising Ngāi Tahu as tangata whenua. In doing so, in entering into the Treaty settlement legislation, the Crown said, in its apology, that it wanted to enter into a new age of co-operation with Ngāi Tahu. Those words are from the apology itself.

There can never be full restoration; we know that. The Treaty settlement process acknowledges that. But that’s not to say that we shouldn’t continue to strive to engage with a genuine and real partnership with Ngāi Tahu and all Treaty partners. That’s what we’re doing here today. We’re looking not at an ossified system, a system that is stuck in old ways, but exploring new ways and innovative ways, ways which recognise the rangatiratanga of Ngāi Tahu, both in respect of the land and the treasures on and in the land, and also the treasures that are Ngāi Tahu and their tikanga.

We know, then, that the claims settlement Act recognised in many places the importance of co-governance, the important place that Ngāi Tahu has to play in having a special voice in respect of this custodianship of the land. And we know that, as Mr Brownlee has mentioned, the insights that Ngāi Tahu could provide was recognised in the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Act, when two Ngāi Tahu representatives were put on the board of Environment Canterbury (ECan), appointed by Ngāi Tahu. I think it’s important to recognise that—that this is not Government or anyone else imposing on Ngāi Tahu who or how those people are selected, but to simply say: we want you to have a voice, a real voice, a voice that’s equal with every other councillor’s around the table, and do it your way; use your rules, your tikanga. I think that’s important.

I think it’s really important as well to say that this isn’t about—if I can be a little selfish, it isn’t just about giving something special to Ngāi Tahu; it’s giving something special to Canterbury. And that’s important, because I’m confident that ECan will be a better, more thoughtful, stronger and more deliberative organisation with those voices around the table. I’m not saying that out of some hope, but if we look to the ECan documentation that underlines this bill and the policy paper they had, they said, in respect of having Ngāi Tahu at the table, that the practical benefits of mana whenua representation in Canterbury were rapidly and widely recognised during the nine years it was in place. These benefits include greater efficiency in planning and consenting, reduced costs for the council and consent applicants, and improved enforcement decisions. I’ll have that! That sounds pretty damn good to me. That’s a benefit that falls not just to Ngāi Tahu but to all of Canterbury. We will have better outcomes, better environmental outcomes, and better outcomes around the rohe because of that.

I do want to recognise also that objections have been raised around the Bill of Rights Act and that was looked at independently by the Ministry of Justice, advising the Attorney-General, as Sarah Pallett, the MP for Ilam, has identified. That wasn’t a cursory look. The question was: is this discriminatory on the basis of race? Is this giving special rights to someone, a group that isn’t justified on the basis of race? The question was squarely asked and it was squarely answered, and the answer was this: to do so would be to discriminate on two comparable groups. We don’t have two comparable groups. We have the general population and we have Ngāi Tahu, who occupy a special place, who have been recognised as having special rights because of significant historical wrongs and grievances that need to be addressed. This step today is part of that story, a story that continues, and I’m very proud to be part of it.

So the question then becomes: are we brave enough to have a diverse, a modern, and an inclusive democracy, a democracy that recognises the rights of our indigenous people, as mana whenua and Treaty partners? Because this will benefit all of Canterbury. It’s a step to protect the things that we all treasure: our environment, our waterways, our forests, our fisheries, and so on. This is a genuine partnership with our Treaty partners, a partnership which must and will endure. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

I have a very nice note from Rino Tirikatene, warning me that a waiata will be sung at the conclusion of the vote, and permission is granted for that to occur.

Waiata

Haka