Grigg NicolaNICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you Mr Speaker. I along with my colleagues also rise to speak in opposition to the Canterbury Regional Council (Ngāi Tahu Representation) Bill. This is a case of history trying to—I would hazard a guess unsuccessfully—repeat itself. This House has been here before. As has been well canvassed already we have a bill here that seeks to reinstate direct Ngāi Tahu representation to the Canterbury Regional Council—or ECan as we call it back home—after the 2016 Act was repealed three years later. In 2019 when this bill first appeared before the House it didn't pass its first reading and there is very good reason for that. Thank goodness for the Opposition of New Zealand First ACT and National. It was a bad bill back then. It is a bad bill now setting a bad precedent.My colleague Gerry Brownlee who I'm actually—very ably I might add—stepping in for right now; he was supposed to be taking this call. He said to this House in 2019 that it is a local bill that is trying to make changes that would be included in primary legislation. Despite all of the very emotional rhetoric and mud being slung over the House this afternoon that is the reason that we are objecting to this. It is a bad bill. The Labour Party actually should have paid attention to Mr Brownlee back then because it would not have set it on a course to make the same mistake that it's about to make today.The other issue that we take exception with is that this bill is a result of ECan using its democratically elected powers to undemocratically force a change on weak Canterbury ratepayers without our consent. Not one of us ratepayers have been consulted on this. Using the process outlined in this bill Ngāi Tahu would confirm two appointees in a process that has not required democratic input. Those two appointees as we've discussed would sit alongside a democratically elected council with full voting rights. I ask the Labour Party the Government to consider treating Canterbury ratepayers with a little more respect.While I'm on that subject the contributions we have heard from all sides of the House this afternoon have been patronising in the extreme—absolutely patronising. Why can the Government not consider that an iwi as successful and as powerful as Ngāi Tahu who will undoubtedly have people of exceptional experience skill set calibre are able to stand on their own two feet able to stand for local body election on their own credentials without having to be hand-held and shepherded into the council chamber on the back of this bill. I think the people of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu deserve more respect from the Government than this bill. It is disrespectful of the vast talent and depth within the organisation.To be clear the importance of mana whenua representation at all levels of political decision-making is not lost on us in the National Party. It might pay the Government to remember the advances that Māoridom have made under former National Governments. Might I remind the Government of the 60 Treaty settlements that were negotiated under the National Government. We are very clear that mana whenua have a critical role in decision making and policy making and lawmaking in this country but it is not through an appointment process such as being put forward in this bill by this Government. The fact of the matter is there is already mana whenua representation at the council table thanks to the two Tumu Taiao roles which are very ably filled by Iaean Cranwell and Yvette Couch-Lewis.The National Party opposes this bill again because it is no better than the bill that came before this House in 2019. It is a local bill trying to reform primary legislation. It is being undemocratically forced on the people of Canterbury and National opposes it.