Court SimonSIMON COURT (ACT): 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 15600-odd members in the region—two representatives for those 15600 while it gives the other 630000 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."