Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National): Thank you for that Mr Chair but the point is so that everyone understands exactly what the bill is about the minutiae of detail inside any particular section becomes somewhat irrelevant. It only gains its relevance from the wider understanding that people have of the bill. And I need to respond to the sponsoring member's claim that I'm wrong about this bill being similar to the Rotorua bill because this bill is according to him substantially different—I don't see how that is—and I'm wrong in saying that this bill is not a reinstatement bill and let me explain that last one because the other points he makes are not explicable.The bill that was passed in 2016 was putting commissioners into Environment Canterbury (ECan). It was denying the elected rights of those who were sitting on ECan and replacing them with Government appointees. And as part of that process the bill enabled Ngāi Tahu to nominate people who might be useful in the structure of that appointed group of commissioners. It did not say—it definitely did not say—that Ngāi Tahu made the appointments. The member read that word for word from the legislation. It did not say that Ngāi Tahu appointed them. It said Ngāi Tahu recommended and the appointments were made effectively by the Governor-General after a request for the Governor-General to do so coming from Cabinet.I have to tell the Minister that there were a range of people considered at that time and that there was finally agreement on the two people who would be the representatives and that they were appointed by the Governor-General. The attempt was to get as broad a mix of skills as possible into that group of commissioners. It was achieved largely because the two Ngāi Tahu representatives had skills well beyond their deep understanding of the tikanga of Ngāi Tahu and the area that they came from. But remember that they also did not represent every single hapū group inside Ngāi Tahu as well.So he is wrong to say this is a reinstatement bill. This is new. It's a stepping over the top of the democratic process and allowing an iwi group in this country to decide that they will put two particular representatives on to a board effectively whether we like to look at it any other way giving that group—because clearly they will be reporting back to the people who appointed them—veto rights over the activities of that council. That is a substantial shift from the concept of appointing commissioners. In many ways the argument put forward for this bill by the promoter on behalf of the Canterbury regional council—ECan—is a justification and almost a call for the reappointment of commissioners in Canterbury. And I tell you what—there would be very widespread support for that because the current ECan group is to say the least somewhat woolly and if we look at the reason why those commissioners were put in place in the first instance which is the argument in favour of this bill from the proponents it was because ECan had failed for over 20 years to bring down a water plan for Canterbury. The commissioners did that—they did it very successfully. But since we've gone back to the democratic process there's been a slowing of all sorts of things. There's been a throwing into the mix of an extraordinary range of different things that are affecting and slowing opportunities in communities. And given that's it's a council that's supposed to look at our local resources and protect them then I see very little evidence that that is to the fore in their thinking. I've only had two meetings with ECan in the last two years and both of those meetings showed that the councillors are not in charge of the process. It is in fact the bureaucrats of the council who completely run it and so we would ask the question: how is this bill going to create progress on the many issues the environmental issues that face people in Canterbury? What we've got at the moment is a massive bureaucratic sort of approach to almost every aspect of their work and very little progress for the people who pay their rates.I know that I'll get emails and other things condemning what I've had to say and all the rest of it—explaining how hard it is and what they have to do and blah blah blah. Well imagine the overlay that will be put on to that body with two members who have veto authority based on their experience as iwi representatives. If they are elected then that's fine and let's make no bones about it. Ngāi Tahu is a very very strong organisation a great organisation for Te Wai Pounamu great for the South Island great for our Canterbury district—no question about that. They are people who come together because of their birthright you could say and who will invest in our communities and not look to run off anywhere else. They are there for the long haul and have been for the long haul. I acknowledge all of that.But when there is that huge power both economically and it would seem increasingly in population if we are to believe the position put forward by the sponsor of the bill then why be afraid of the democratic process? Because that gives a greater mandate to anyone sitting at that table wanting to do things. I think there's a real question that needs to be asked about why that's not something that Ngāi Tahu have embraced rather than coming to us and saying Well we're not sure that we can get all our people to agree in sufficient numbers to actually get someone who wants to represent us on to the council so would you just let us have our own representative?" That's really the question that's being answered in this bill and it's not appropriate. It's not at all appropriate. It would be easy to say "Well are there other groups that are similar?" Personally there aren't. There are no groups similar to Ngāi Tahu in the Canterbury region. But if we were to say "Well let's have an amalgamation of interests and then we'll see if we can write a bill that might get them in there." it only takes one elected body at a time to decide that these could be good things. We could have transport lobbyists coming together and saying "We should have one of our transport people on there." And then any one of a range of other things could be on there. The fact is that farming interests which are very much affected by ECan are represented on the council via the elective process. So for this bill while you want to call us back to that particular clause you've got to understand from the start what it's setting out to do and why it is inappropriate for what is being claimed. If in fact there is widespread support as the member said then there would be widespread support through the electoral process at the ballot box. If there is no particular other interest that can be represented then that would make the ballot box process all that much clearer to every one of those eligible among that 600000 population down in our part of the world who may or may not vote on this.Then when it comes to the question "Was this discussed?" I have to say that at least one prominent member of the sponsor's caucus did not appear to know a great deal about this bill until very recently. So I think the quality of discussion might have been a little bit short and I can't help feeling that someone like Tāmati Coffey might be feeling a little aggrieved that he got knocked over but this one somehow gets through.We will get to the substance of the bill clause by clause bits of it but I think there is still that acknowledgment needed that this is not a reinstatement bill; it is new. What we had from 2016 was very different from what is proposed in this bill."