Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you Mr Chair.Hon Gerry Brownlee: How's this supposed to work?SIMON COURT: Oh Mr Brownlee would like to continue his call. I'm happy to wait otherwise—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: That side is so confused. Sort yourselves out.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Simon Court you have the call. If you don't want it we'll move to the next step.SIMON COURT: Thank you Mr Chair.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order Mr Chair. Look I was I was part of the group that actually devised this new process for the committee of the whole House to work and the deal—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is not a point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Beg your pardon?Hon Carmel Sepuloni: I'm not talking to you.Hon Gerry Brownlee: You shouldn't be talking at all.Hon Willie Jackson: We'll talk whenever we bloody like.Hon Gerry Brownlee: What was that Willie?CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! If you want to take a point of order please take the point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am but actually the Standing Orders require that points of order are listened to in silence.CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Heard in silence. Quite right.Hon Gerry Brownlee: So Mr Chair the arrangement was that while someone might have a call they could ask a question and if the person who was in the chair effectively on behalf of the bill—or the sponsor in this case—indicated that they wanted to respond then you would yield to that position but then resume your call. And I saw Mr Tirikatene stand up and therefore I—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Well I apologise if Mr Tirikatene did stand up. I didn't see him stand up and I called Simon Court as a result of it.SIMON COURT: Thank you Mr Chair. So I just want to reflect on answers that the member sponsoring the bill Rino Tirikatene has given to the member Eugenie Sage who stood up and gave an effusive but basically nonsensical set of reasons why the purpose of the bill would achieve some stuff—Hon Carmel Sepuloni: It made complete sense.SIMON COURT: —under the Treaty of Waitangi. Well it might make sense to the member Carmel Sepuloni because she's used to hearing nonsense from within the Labour caucus but it didn't make any sense to people who sit on this side of the House.I want to come back to the purpose and I want to ask the member: could he please explain some of the things that he said in response to Eugenie Sage's statements such as The purpose of this bill fulfils the Crown obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi towards Ngāi Tahu."? And if so I'd like him to tell us which ones which obligations. Eugenie Sage also mentioned that they fulfilled the obligations of a Treaty settlement in which case I would like if the member agrees with these two statements by Eugenie Sage the member to point out which clauses of the deed of the Treaty settlement the deed where it says that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu should have members appointed to Environment Canterbury with voting rights. Because if he can't point to the Treaty of Waitangi obligation which says Ngāi Tahu should have voting rights on the regional council or to the Treaty settlement the particular clause that says that then we'll have to assume that that is not a valid reason.But I want to come back to the purpose. And again the member and others who've spoken in support of the bill have pointed out that Environment Canterbury can't do their job. They can't make decisions about resource allocation they can't make decisions about matters that have a potential cultural impact on the iwi Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu without having voting members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu on the council. In fact the member said quite clearly that without the input of Ngāi Tahu into decision making how on earth would the council know. In fact Eugenie Sage said the same thing: how would the council have known not to build a non-compliant waste-water treatment plant discharging effluent into Akaroa Harbour unless Ngāi Tahu told them so? Well potentially what Environment Canterbury could do is ask an ecologist ask an environmental scientist or even ask Ngāi Tahu for a submission on what they think. But that doesn't require that the iwi that the rūnanga have members appointed as voting members on to Environment Canterbury It's not possible to draw the conclusion that that's necessary from the problem statement that the member or Eugenie Sage has described.I would challenge any member of the committee: don't leave this member Rino Tirikatene to stand up and have to defend this on his own. Many of you have degrees. In fact I understand that the member Duncan Webb he's some kind of professor and he's worked as a lawyer. So potentially—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! Come back to the bill.SIMON COURT: Thank you Mr Chair. So potentially other members of the governing Labour Party could give some support to the member and help explain exactly why the purpose of the bill is described as to give voting rights to members of the runanga Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to give effect to or fulfil a Treaty obligation or otherwise fulfil the condition of a Treaty settlement. Otherwise we put a line through those two and we say "That's nonsense. Please continue to find a reason why this legislation is necessary and what objectives it will fulfil that can't be fulfilled simply by writing to Ngāi Tahu and seeking advice or by asking them 'Could we procure your services to give advice on an ongoing basis because there's difficult stuff that impacts you that we'd like more advice on.'" That simply doesn't require that this bill provides for Environment Canterbury through Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu to have their appointees given voting rights over resource allocations decisions around land and water that affect everybody in Canterbury not just Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. I'd like the member to please explain because we haven't heard it yet."