SpeechSIMON COURT (ACT): Thank you to the member Rino Tirikatene for clarifying your role. I do appreciate it. But I want to come back to my question. I don't understand why. You have rightly pointed out that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu the iwi do have a special connection to the land. They have a cultural connection and also they've continuously occupied large parts of it. So let's just assume right that's a fact. But there are avenues for Ngāi Tahu to make clear their expectations around environmental management to have the opportunity to submit to bills and submit on resource consents for example. Also under the previous arrangement where members of Ngāi Tahu were appointed to the transitional commissioner role that was also an opportunity to give their view on matters that are important to Ngāi Tahu. So there is potentially still an opportunity. If the case the member wishes to make is that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu require an extraordinary level of access into the elected members of Environment Canterbury by being able to sit around the table with them—and that's an extraordinary level of access compared to say Federated Farmers or Irrigation New Zealand or Transporting New Zealand. It's an extraordinary level of access.Barbara Edmonds: Point of order. I just want to reiterate the point that was made by the member Rino Tirikatene the sponsor of the bill. Part 1 is quite narrow in the sense that it's purpose interpretation relationship. The points that the member is making—CHAIRPERSON (Ian McKelvie): Order! Order! It's not my business to point it out but I'll point out the very fact of the purpose is exactly what the member is talking about.SIMON COURT: Thank you. So back to the purpose of the bill for the benefit of that member Barbara Edmonds. I'm asking: would the member sponsoring the bill please explain what the objectives are behind this purpose? If the objectives are that Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu seek to have an extraordinary opportunity over and above any other groups which have a longstanding connection to Te Wai Pounamu the South Island such as farmers such as the transporting industry such as the miners the energy operators then the member should make a case for that. And we haven't heard that because the purpose simply says to appoint up to two members of the council so they can do elected council stuff. Well it's not clear why they need that opportunity and why they need those powers which rightly should fall under a liberal democracy only to people who have sought to be elected. So back to the purpose of the bill for the benefit of that member Barbara Edmonds—the purpose. What the ACT Party is asking is for the member sponsoring the bill to explain why Environment Canterbury thinks it's so important that members of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu are appointed on to the council and have voting rights and what objectives the purpose of this bill fulfils. Because it's not clear. If as the member points out there are cultural or customary connections with the land there are many other avenues for Ngāi Tahu to demonstrate and actually to get influence over decision making whether it's through submissions through the resource consent process or whether it's for example taking their claim for rights and interests in fresh water to the Waitangi Tribunal. They currently have a claim before the Waitangi Tribunal which I understand is on hold or awaiting the outcome potentially of the three waters legislation which might give co-governance rights to iwi. Maybe that will solve the issue of freshwater rights. But the member hasn't made it clear what objectives this bill is trying to address because if it's around decision making over fresh water well then potentially Environment Canterbury should be saying to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu We look forward to what the Waitangi Tribunal says about your right to some fresh water." because guess what! Ngāi Tahu have evidence that they were the first people to sell water in New Zealand to some French sailors who turned up in Akaroa harbour and they charged them a gold coin to re-victual their ship with fresh water. So if they do have rights and interests in fresh water and they think they should have extraordinary decision-making powers over natural resources let them have their day in court. But I'd like the member to explain: if that's not the purpose what is the purpose and what is the objective? Thank you."